One of the most common misdirections we seen in our society is the appraisal of someone's or something's actions based on the criteria of the person making the appraisal
instead of based on valid criteria.
What makes a set of criteria
valid? Valid criteria are either criteria that people explicitly
claim that they comply with, or that they implicitly subscribe to. Examples of explicit claims include when job applicants put out resumes, or when companies put out advertisements. Implicit subscription is a bit less obvious: When you live in a society, you implicitly subscribe to the laws of that society. When you join a church, you implicitly subscribe to the precepts of that religious faith. When a company joins a consortium or association, it implicitly subscribes to the explicit and implicit criteria that the consortium or association professes.
Everyone can have an opinion about whether they
like something, or whether it
satisfies them. However, it is important to note that those are evaluations
of the person having that opinion. When you say that you don't like something, it is little different from saying that you've failed to be satisfied (but how many people are willing to view their dissatisfaction in that manner?)
In order to go that extra step and (legitimately) comment
on the provider of what you're unhappy or dissatisfied about, you must compare what they did against
valid criteria, rather than relying on your own personal preferences and proclivities. And that means setting aside your own personal (negative) bias. That's really hard to do effectively. (There is a science and discipline that serves as a foundation for doing so -- my previous career was based on my expertise in that regard. However, it isn't really rocket science, but it does require a willingness to grant others a measure of consideration that flies in the face of today's rampant curmudgeony.)
How does this map into the subject of this thread? Easily: You're essentially raising two issues: When someone reads the OP, their
first thought (if they're human) will be whether or not they're personally happy/satisfied with the
DTV transition. The challenge for them will be to see if they can go that extra step, and evaluate the
DTV transition based on the objectives of the transition itself, and based on
all of those objectives, rather than just the objectives that focus on the elements of satisfaction or dissatisfaction that they themselves personally hold.
The toughest part of it is granting other people/entities the respect and dignity we each expect to receive ourselves, i.e., granting that satisfying their desires may sometimes be a higher priority in the
valid criteria and satisfying one's own desires. That's a very tough nut to swallow.
The only appraisals I typically give much credence to are those from folks who say something positive even though their own personal satisfaction was negative, or folks who say something negative even though their own personal satisfaction was positive. Reaching over that line demonstrates the ability to evaluate based on valid criteria instead of having one's judgment clouded by personal bias. While it isn't impossible for someone to have a personal bias in one direction and still reach that same type of conclusion based on valid criteria, it is often not the case.
Digital Transition = Success
I don't think anyone much cares to discuss the transition anymore anyway...obviously from the lack of response.
Linear Mode
