^^^ Yeah, there is this entire quasi-mythological narrative about "hooking" that buys into the idea too-sharp edges will "grab" certain kinds of broken soft snow. Never mind that the analogy is easy but its physical reality is elusive - just consider the difference between the scale of an edge and the scale of a snowflake, or whether the snowflake/ice/crust particle can tell the difference between a very sharp and slightly sharp edge, relative to the other forces involved in the system.
The closest I've come to a cogent explanation is when someone said that the "hook" occurred when the tip bites into crust and engages, whereby a dull edge would slip. Again, sounds reasonable until you think about how crust isn't sheer smooth ice, where that kind of model might work. Crust is, ah, crusty, in fact, rough and full of irregularities where even a dull edge can bite. If it's being pressured.
To my own way of thinking, the reaction of a ski tip to snow would seem much more likely about how the skier's pressuring meets its flex, inertia, shape, where contact point meets sidecut, and at the very very end of the list, edges.
But the evidence presented, always, is that when people dull their edges, they report they don't find the ski tries to initiate a turn on its own as much. I'd call that a placebo effect, or maybe subtle unconscious changes in weight placement, but that would make the backside skiers who swear by hookiness irritated at my naiveté. Would love to see a case control trial, with skiers unaware of the edge sharpness. Meanwhile...