The breaker in my apartment died during the hottest stretch of summer. This was not a problem that could wait. I went downstairs to the hardware store, bought a replacement, and paid exactly twice what the thing was worth. I didn't argue. I scanned the code and left.
The owner looked surprised, then faintly disappointed. I suspect he was recalculating: perhaps he could have asked for more.
I didn't have the patience to haggle. Getting the power back on mattered more than winning a price war. The extra money was not mysterious to me. I could have ordered the same breaker online for less, but it would have taken time to arrive. The premium was the cost of not waiting. In that sense, it was an even trade: money for hours. Once I paid, there was no lingering debt between us. He did not owe me a discount, and I did not owe him a grudge.
This sounds simple, but it runs against a habit many people have. I once saw someone make the same point from another angle. A botany expert who explains rare fruits on science programs was attacked for saying their Latin names. Some viewers couldn't follow, and they complained that it was disgusting or unnecessary. The writer was furious and amused at once. The Latin names are necessary: many fruits have no settled Chinese name, so the Latin name reduces confusion. It is the responsible thing to do. And if you don't understand a free educational program, that is your problem. The expert is not obligated to match your level. Someone with a little intellectual self-respect should feel embarrassed about not following, not scold the person who shared the knowledge.
The writer described a type of person who goes through life as if still being fed. They assume others have a natural duty to satisfy them. If they are not satisfied, they throw a tantrum and demand accountability for an obligation that never existed. Such people often have trouble with abstract thought and no sense of boundaries in relationships. It is like a toddler's mind inside an adult skull. Their operating principle is simple: you owe them.
This attitude creates real social damage. If they decide a program is unsuitable for their children, they want it off the air. If they dislike a book's viewpoint, they want the platform to stop recommending it. Every time I see this, I think of the line that keeping beautiful things away from fools is how beautiful things survive. It is clever, but also bleak. In an adult society where no one owes anyone, beautiful things should be able to exist in the open.
I have met too many people who begin every transaction with the conclusion that they have already lost. Their logic is: if I didn't come away with something extra, I was cheated. Every situation is divided into winning and losing, and winning often means making sure the other person gets nothing. If they had been standing at the hardware store counter, they would have bargained the breaker down as far as possible. If they couldn't get a discount, they would at least make sure the owner didn't enjoy any advantage. They would need to perform their displeasure, to prove that they had not been taken.
The more customers like that a store sees, the higher the sticker price becomes. The owner has to price in the time, energy, breath, and patience those arguments consume. When an easy customer finally walks in, the seller is almost obliged to make up for the trouble. A sucker like me is a rare event, so the premium is not only for the breaker. It is also for all the future haggling the seller anticipates.
That may be why the owner's face changed so quickly. First surprise at my speed, then disappointment. Perhaps he thought he had left money on the table. Or perhaps he realized that he had misread me. He had assumed I was one of those people who believe he owes them something. I wasn't. I just wanted the lights on.