No. He draws no conclusions from Gladwell's analysis; he brings Gladwell into the discussion only to show a well-publicized comparison between what Gladwell believed to be two opposing views of how risk works in the markets. He then tries to demonstrate that Niederhoffer's approach outperformed Taleb's, not because Gladwell said so, but because the empirically available facts of how the funds operated appear to demonstrate it.
Gladwell plays into the comparison about as much as the editors of Cosmopolitan would play into it if Niederhoffer and Taleb had shared the cover of an issue of Cosmo.
