I find this interview very interesting, because around a decade prior, Stern himself proposed 'clear the neighbourhood'[1] as a finer-grained rule for planet classification involving the dynamics of the planetary body in question. That is, planets that could clear their neighbourhoods are überplanets; otherwise unterplanets. In fact, near the end of that paper he proposes not two, but five classifications of planets: subdwarf, dwarf, subgiant, giant, and supergiant.

Now, Stern's broader argument in that interview is that we should not take into account the dynamical behaviour of planets. I disagree, especially since dynamics determine the static future state of any given object. Take chthonian planets—former gas giants whose gaseous envelopes have been stripped away by the primary. Do we insist that they are still gas giants? No, we even came up with a name for the transitory period when these planets are losing their gas envelopes.

Personally, I think Stern was being a little more animated to drum up support for and shine a beacon on New Horizons, a then-ongoing mission that he was principal investigator of.

To directly answer your question:

> If a massive object came into the solar system and perturbed orbits, caused chaos and collisions, then any "planet" with debris within its neighborhood would cease to be a planet.

There actually are (multiple) mathematical formulations for 'clearing the neighbourhood'[2]; it's not purely empirical or based on vibes. Stern proposed one in the above-mentioned paper. Jean-Luc Margot suggests several more[3]. I suspect a more universal model will be probabilistic but grounded in celestial mechanics.

> Does it realistically outweigh decades or centuries of peoples intuition of the existing definition?

People's intuition for 'planet' in the centuries before telescopes were invented was 'something that moves against the fixed background of stars'—that is literally the Greek etymon for the English 'planet'. The Sun and Moon used to be a part of the 'classical planets'. We didn't even find the last two (or three) planets in our own Solar System until around two centuries ago. We didn't know about nuclear fusion until 1925, and we didn't know other galaxies existed until similarly recently. We didn't understand the inflationary model of the universe until the 1960s. The first exoplanet was discovered only in 1992.

We have repeatedly and retroactively renamed, retconned, reworked, revamped and rewound scientific definitions and models over and over again. I think planets will be OK.

[1]: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1539299600013289

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood

[3]: https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/185

Dwarf planet candidate appears which takes roughly 280 years to orbit our sun