That comment isn't arguing against the gladwell-is-a-hack perspective, just pointing out that his skill at a certain kind of writing is orthogonal and that he is, in fact, good at a certain kind of writing.
We all get it. Gladwell trades in "it turns out than" constructions as much as anybody else. But so do lots of mediocre writers. Gladwell is fun to read. People don't read him simply to scratch their chin and say "yeah, that's right, that's how the world works, I should uPdAtE mY pRiOrS", the way they do with other it-turns-out-ists. They read him because he knows how to bait a hook and cast a line, and if you make the mistake of nibbling at a Gladwell paragraph you're apt to get snagged. That's a skill, and it's as superficial and vapid as a Gladwell argument to pretend otherwise.
You seem to be confusing the claim hackery is integral to and inseperable from Gladwell's effectiveness rather than orthogonal to it for a claim that hackery is sufficient for his effectiveness.
I think the hackery's necessary in that it's necessary in order for him to have completed his books with as little effort as he did. Writing as well without the hackery would require coming up with better theses (which would mean jettisoning weak ones when you realize they're weak, and starting over, rather than plowing ahead regardless—this could be a long process) and a lot more time finding and evaluating evidence.
Good writing ability (for certain definitions of "good") plus hackery are necessary if you want to make the economics of your writing work as well as he has, writing airport nonfiction books. Writing non-hacky nonfiction is takes a lot more time and (perhaps) more talent.
> Do you think that it's impossible to be as effective with a more correct thesis?
No.
I think that the techniques for being effective at synthesizing and conveying accurate information in writing are very different from the techniques for being effectiveness at selling pseudo-intellectual just-so stories reinforcing conventional values like “putting time in on focussed hard work is the most important ingredient to success”.
My interpretation of Gladwell is simply that he's very good at the standard method of finding a relatable example to illustrate a theory. His problem (a common problem) is that he tends to ignore counter-examples.
