I still marvel at people who act and write as if D-K is proven. The debate about whether the effect exists, its scale if it does exist, where it might originate if it is real and where it might originate if it is a statistical artifact ... these all carry on. D-K is not settled psychology/science, even though the idea is utterly recognizable to all of us.
> though the idea is utterly recognizable to all of us.
Then why marvel? If we can't scientifically prove it, but it tracks logically and people find it to be repeatedly recognizable in real-life, it makes sense people speak about it as if it's real
