I'm not saying Gladwell is right, but Chabris' argument amounts to pulling one referenced study out of context and saying "SEE HOW TERRIBLE THIS IS." He's complaining about sample size... with a single anecdotal example?
Also, social scientists are kind of cute when they get all angry.
Some day, someone's grandkid is going to be spouting something about "10,000 hours" and not even know where it comes from.
Which will replace the even more flawed understanding of "born with it".
We all go through life with flawed mental models, which aren't perfect but are better than a complete lack of understanding. Over time, we make those models in the general consciousness better, even if they continue to lag behind true scientific understanding.
I haven't read a Gladwell book, let alone bothered to run down all the relevant science. But if Gladwell's legion of critics are right, then he's doing the opposite of Mythbusters. They are teaching people to experiment; he's turning ideas into appealing stories without any interest in testing them.
The citations aren't there to trick people into thinking things are more serious than they are. They are meant as foundation and support to the theses of the essays. What more could you ask for? Seems ad hominem.
[1] An example that Chabris points out: "The Law of the Few."