What the movie GURU doesn’t tell you, and what influences you even more.
A “guru” isn’t just a cartoonish coach who posts three stories and sells you the Moon. There are plenty of those, but that’s not the point.
The real trap is confusing posture with status or job title.
A guru is, first and foremost, someone who installs a norm or a dogma, tells you what’s good for you, and, most importantly, locks it all down in the name of morality or ethics.
And on LinkedIn, you run into that every day. (At least I do.)
A professor, a PhD student, a philosopher, a psychologist, a researcher, an “expert” can become a guru very fast, because there’s a specific way of taking the high ground in public exchanges.
When someone presents themselves as an intellectual or a guardian of “the right way to think,” it’s especially entertaining to watch.
Don’t take my word for it. Test it. LinkedIn makes it easy. Here’s the recipe to see whether your favorite authority figure is a GURU.
Find a post from an intellectual-type account, like the profiles mentioned above.
-
A post that ends by telling you what to think, what to do, what to feel, with a “I’ve figured it out” vibe.
So far, fine. What matters is what happens next. -
Reply with a clear contradiction, with zero moral judgment, on a point of logic, ethics, method, technique, or a shaky assumption.
(If you struggle, ask ChatGPT to help you phrase it.) -
Watch the author’s reaction. The reply. The non-reply. The lone like. Especially when they reply to everyone else.
You’ll usually get one of two scenarios.
Scenario A: the “guru” posture
They answer next to the point.
They disqualify you.
They give you a moral lecture.
They take the high ground.
The precise issue you raised never gets addressed.
The goal is to protect the posture and the status at all costs. Anything suggesting they didn’t actually “figure it out” gets ignored.
Scenario B: the pro posture
They respond (or try to) on the specific point.
Clarify.
Justify.
Argue.
Adjust if needed.
Add nuance.
The topic stays the topic.
One simple indicator: when the contradiction is solid and interesting, the pro gets more precise. The guru gets more moral and more vague.
If you want a mini checklist to run the experiment cleanly, comment “GURU” (in addition to whatever you write) and I’ll publish the grid in a next post.
Me? I’m a guru of critical thinking.
