I was ready to conditionally recommend the book after the end of Section 1

Which is pretty much where I was in the book when I recommended it. I actually just finished it this past week and last night just read through "Appendix A" which is the study published in 1977. I have no desire to read "Appendix B" and wholeheartedly agree that Ariely's book is far better.

Though I wasn't really bothered by the tone, the statistical stuff had me scratching my head. Hang on, that's not quite right. I wasn't bothered by the tone until part 3 when he talks more about gambling. Kahneman basically says that most people don't learn from their statistical mistakes because they have no idea that they can frame things differently by "zooming out" and looking at the big picture. I'm not saying I'm the greatest gambler ever, but most of the low-level gamblers I know and including myself, did learn to do just that, at least to a degree.

I do feel like the book could have been much condensed, say from 450 pages to around . . . I dunno, 200?

I will say though, that the book made me aware of the Premortem exercise, which was conceived by Gary Klein, a guy with whom Kahneman disagrees on almost everything, except this exercise. Here's a link to the procedure, if anyone is interested. Personally, I think that's really great and can be applied to other social science scenarios, for example conflict management situations.

Anyway, I'm glad you finished around the same time as I did and were able to put into words exactly what it is that bothered you about the book. I'm still having trouble articulating what it is that doesn't quite sit right for me, but this helps. Next book I recommend, I'll make sure to finish before doing so! Sorry dude.