This is complicated. There's no easy answer, but the outlook for replicability/reproducibility of a lot of the empirical evidence is not great.
The R-index (that the blog authors use to rank the chapters) is itself a heuristic, which shouldn't be taken as statistical evidence that a study will necessarily fail to replicate. That being said, it could potentially be considered a useful heuristic, as is the idea that people process information over time (i.e., some mental processes happen more quickly than others).
An issue of Psychological Inquiry might be helpful to people who want to learn about the most recent conversation among a select group of psychological scientists. This journal publishes a "target article" and allows other people in the field to comment, to which the original authors reply. The whole conversation is published as an issue - this one is from April 2021. Without going into detail, many priming effects do not replicate, and social priming might be a terrible term to use, in part because it is associated with questionable scientific literature (target article here, one cherry-picked commentary here, the authors of the target article reply to the commentaries here).
Kahneman himself warned of problems with the literature in 2012 (see a scientific news report here (4) and his email here).
Sherman, J. W., & Rivers, A. M. (2021). There’s nothing social about social priming: derailing the “train wreck”. Psychological Inquiry, 32(1), 1-11.
Harris, C., Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2021). A train wreck by any other name. Psychological Inquiry, 32(1), 17-23.
Sherman, J. W., & Rivers, A. M. (2021). A final word on train wrecks. Psychological Inquiry, 32(1), 49-52.
Yong, E. (2012). Nobel laureate challenges psychologists to clean up their act. Nature News.
Hope this helps.
