Sometimes it takes an (admittedly erroneous) crude approach just to bring what should be an overt point to fruition. While this wasn't one of them, there are certainly times.
And on that point, that's the feeling I get when I read this article. The writer is trying to be direct and ride the fence of "condemnation by realization" but only comes off as wrongly crude. While I haven't read any of Gladwell's book, I've seen him speak and he's got his wits about him regarding these things. Let's put it into perspective: how many of us can effectively lecture on the things he does?
I don't think it's a very good article, but I agree with its premise. Gladwell is not scientifically rigid. His books are interesting and make me think, but I would not take any statistic he gave me as anything other than an interesting fiction. He's too selective about data.
Specifically, you're mainly being downmodded for your last phrase: "you" and the following 4-letter word. If you left that off, you would've gotten a few points down at most. (And I would've up-modded you, as I also dislike spelling mistakes.)