This is a different kind of review. The book itself has short chapters with easily graspable information on our inherent biases (confirmation, endowment, sensory perception), which have become well-known through Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's work and its many offshoots.
I am not commenting on the substance of the book, but rather the examples Myers uses to illustrate these biases/effects.
Early on, I noticed that the real-world examples he uses reflect a particular ideological/political orientation, one very commonly shared by academics in the social sciences these days. So be it. In my view, this detracts from the quality, and possible the veracity of the claims, as choices made of what research to showcase, or what issues to discuss, may derive from one's personal worldview. But I read on, because human beings are fascinating, and I am always looking to understand us better.
But about halfway through the book I reached my tolerance for the one-sided examples cited, and lost the desire to finish the book. This is very unusual for me (my Goodreads shelves have only books that I have read in their entirety), but I was sufficiently bothered by this to not wish to continue, especially when I saw some of the chapter headings of the final section.
Here's the nub of my concern: The author is a writer of textbooks. Textbooks have been considered 'impartial,' 'objective,' like encyclopedias, so students are getting the best of the information available at the time. But if textbooks sport examples that reflect the writer's bias (not so implicit), that will be absorbed along with the rest of the content.
Polarity is a big problem, but the less obvious but nonetheless ideological interpolation of political viewpoints through examples leads to confirmation bias, if you agree with these views (you may not even notice this, as it is already part of your worldview), or, as in my case, increasing discomfort and disappointment with the choices.
That is my 2 cents, FWIW.