One of the findings they discussed was that not only did experts have lower accuracy than the statistically generated rules, when given the result of the rule and the option to defect from its prediction they were much more likely to chose to defect when the rule was right and they were wrong than the other way around.

Ok, I haven't read the book. But doesn't the second statement follow logically from the first? Both seem equivalent to saying that when the experts disagreed with the rule, the rule was right more often than they were.