[gjm11]

Consider the following two propositions.

1. When someone "successful" criticizes Gladwell's thesis, it's suspicious because maybe they just don't want to hear that they weren't really smarter than everyone else.

2. When someone "unsuccessful" criticizes Gladwell's thesis, it's suspicious because maybe they just don't want to hear that their lack of success simply shows that they didn't work hard enough.

#1 is your argument; presumably you find it plausible. It seems to me that #2 is about equal in plausibility to #1; and #1+#2 would say that anyone should be viewed with suspicion, as probably motivated by something other than honest intellectual inquiry, if they criticize Gladwell's book. Which seems ... unhelpful.

It also seems curious that you describe someone as (a) "the number one anecdotal blowhard" and (b) "one of my heroes". Why should the rest of us take any notice of someone who knowingly takes an anecdotal blowhard as a hero?