Interesting article, thanks.

"A large part of his book is devoted to stories illustrating the various illusions to which supposedly rational people succumb."
A "supposedly rational person" wrote that sentence in a supposedly rational review of a supposedly rational idea from a book. Economics, like psychology, is barely a science and the author of the book is both psychologist and economist. Both fields use scientific methods to the extent that they can but so did alchemy. Psychology deals with understanding the human mind. It has a ways to go. Most psychologists hold that, among the field of psychology's thousands of unproven theories, the mind is located mostly in the brain. This reviewer seems to have reached somewhere else for his thinking.

"His [Fahneman's] great achievement was to turn psychology into a quantitative science."

What a ridiculous statement. If psychology is [only] a quantitative science it will never achieve much of value, certainly nothing "great".

"He made our mental processes subject to precise measurement and exact calculation, by studying in detail how we deal with dollars and cents."

Really? Seriously? Somebody believes that our mental processes are subject to "Precise measurement and exact calculation"?  Based on a detailed study of how we spend our dollars and cents? Using the present state of the "art" of psychology or any of the many, many theories of economics or of some combination of both? Is there a polite way to say that Dyson's statement above is moronic bullshit? Probably not a way as strong as I feel it so let me be clear about my opinion as politely as possible: That statement is moronic bullshit.

"His method is to study mental processes that can be observed and measured under rigorously controlled experimental conditions. Following this method, he revolutionized psychology. He discovered mental processes that can be described precisely and demonstrated reliably."

This statement indicates that there is something universal about mental processes that universalizes choices among individual people rather than statistical trends or statistical probabilities of reaction exhibited among groups of test subjects in "controlled" situations. And presumably there was a "control group" made up of what? Humans with standardized, homogenized psyches?
 "Thinking Fast and Slow" may be a good book with valuable lessons, but I do not see how that could be if it is as Dyson describes it.