There's some quite interesting material in this book, but I'm surprised it gets full marks from some reviewers. If I could, I might stretch to giving it 2 and a half stars but no more.
Starting with some positives, it does illustrate a number of "mental tunnels" into which it's easy to be trapped and gives the reader some food for thought. These vary from optical illusions, illogical thinking, distortions from framing of choices and probability illusions and miscellany in a rather odd chapter entitled "The Seven Deadly sins" - I did find a few illogicalities I've been guilty of in this chapter.
There are, however, a number of negatives, Firstly it's not well written. It is a translated book, and it reads like one - very verbose, and clarity is not one of its strong points. Take, for example, this explanation of Baye's Theorem: "the probability that a hypothesis (in particular, a diagnosis) is correct, given the test, is equal to: the probability of the outcome of the test (or verification), given the hypothesis (this is a sort of inverse calculation with respect to the end we are seeking), multiplied by the probability of the hypothesis in an absolute sense (...) and divided by the probability of the outcome of the test in an absolute sense (....)" This has all the clarity of a strategy announcement by Donald Rumsfeld! Have a look at Wikipedia for a much better explanation.
A couple of the example problems and solutions he gives made no sense to me even when I'd re-read them twice! Overall, I have to agree with S. Bergemann's comment that this book isn't a very good model of clear thinking (!)
Secondly, I don't think the author delivers the great revelations the introduction leads us to expect. Some of the examples are well-known, e.g. I learned about the "birthday problem" (i.e. "what's the minimum number of people needed in a room for there to be a better than a 50% chance of 2 sharing a birthday") in a maths class when I was 15 (AND he doesn't explain how to arrive at the answer!!). His examples of "overconfidence illusions" and "illusory correlations", amongst others, are really pretty trivial. At the end of the book, I couldn't say my thinking had been greatly sharpened up or otherwise affected (unlike when I read Barry Schwartz's "Paradox of Choice" or Jamie Whyte's "Bad Thoughts")
Lastly, the appendix in which the author replies to some recent critiques did (for me, anyway) exactly the opposite of what the author presumably intended: I thought many of the criticisms had at least some validity. The author's rubbishing of other viewpoints does him no favours. In particular, the lengthy rant at the end of the book (against what the author terms "cognitive ecologists") does suggest that he has taken a fixed position in an academic slanging match.