> And D-K did indeed show a correlation between the two, just not as strong of one as we would expect. Rather, they showed a consistent bias. That's the interesting result.

"D-K effect in its original form" vs "D-K effect in pop culture" is the biggest D-K effect live example. Of course I mean D-K effect in pop culture here.

Interestingly, the "interesting" part of the original result is that the correlation between actual performance and perceived performance is less than people intuitively think.

But as the "D-K effect in pop culture" spreads, people's collective intuition changes. Today if you explained the original D-K effect to a random person on the internet, they might find it interesting because the correlation is greater than they thought: they thought the correlation would be negative!