I found the initial anecdote of the three teapots to be especially interesting. Norman spends nearly a third of the reading comparing and contrasting them, noting that he might choose one over the others depending on the occasion or his mood. In stark contrast, my first thought was to wonder why anybody would one teapot let alone three. Beauty is really in the eye of the beholder here, since on the rare occasion I make tea it involves a mug and a pre-packaged teabag. Even his mention of displaying them on the windowsill just made me question why he would waste space doing so.
As for the larger discussion on aesthetic/usability and affect/cognition, I have some mixed feelings. The explanation of how the chemicals in your brain can completely warp your perception was very well-done, what with the examples of tightrope walking or opening an emergency door. That being said, the claim that “attractive things work better” feels far too heavy-handed (although Norman himself notes that the claim is heretical). The preceding two sentences mention that a product that looks good will encourage the user to overlook its flaws, and to me that hardly means ‘working better’. You could definitely argue that the emotional aspect could improve the user’s enjoyment, but that is countered by claiming that performance would be better with an uglier, more efficient version. You could also argue that attractiveness helps the product sell, but then you are outright avoiding the point of debate. I would agree more if his claim was about how attractive things face less criticism, and are accepted more easily.