This is terribly written in the way of a bad academic paper: needlessly wordy, repetitive, and taking in circles.

Here's a (HIGHLY ABRIDGED) example, where the author spends pages trying to explain that he is using personification, something which he has already spent many sentences emphasizing.

"You have been invited to think of the two systems as agents within the mind, with their individual personalities, abilities, and limitations. ... The use of such language is considered a sin in the professional circles in which I travel, because it seems to explain the thoughts and actions of a person by the thoughts and actions of little people inside the person’s head. ... My answer is that the brief active sentence that attributes calculation to System 2 is intended as a description, not an explanation. It is meaningful only because of what you already know about System 2. ... System 1 and System 2 are so central to the story I tell in this book that I must make it absolutely clear that they are fictitious characters. Systems 1 and 2 are not systems in the standard sense of entities with interacting aspects or parts."