What makes that the "correct perspective"? If you started doing value investing in 1990 and stopped 30Y later today, you would have perform less than the benchmark, so your definition of "long term" could very well be longer than the whole investment horizon of some people.
> And if you're a very long-term investor, you can ignore the market price and just collect the dividends.
Except few companies pay dividends that would even beat inflation nowadays. The trend is more towards share buybacks. In that world, your intrinsic value does not exist, your only way to make a profit is to sell.
Dividend growth of S&P easily beats inflation. Share buybacks are similar to dividends. If you have 100 shares, you can sell few shares to the company and treat it as a dividend.
What you're trying to say long term market value correlates with technical analysis, but is this true? You can't prove/ disprove this, because its "intrinsic value" can just be replaced with "price".
So IMHO, your words are equivalent to: "The correct perspective, aka reality, is that price gravitates towards the price in the long-term."
Market price and intrinsic value are different concepts. Google Aswath Damodaran's writing on this topic. When GameStop was $400, the price was well above intrinsic value for example so I knew it would gravitate down.
And if you're a very long-term investor, you can ignore the market price and just collect the dividends.
By intrinsic value I mean the sum of all expected future cash-flows where each cash flow is adjusted for time and variance (risk).