The article really isn't about the vice. The more interesting part of this conversation is, how do you know you can trust someone? The value of most agreements is not in their letter, but their spirit, and you need to know if you are dealing with someone who will honor the spirit of an agreement.
Probably the most meaningful aspect of this article, "But the purpose of these visits isn’t a good time. It’s to cement business and personal ties, binding men together through the power of taboo and mutual self-exposure, or at least the pretense of it. It lets them judge that the others involved in a potential deal are men of the same stripe."
And one paragraph down, " As one saying that went rapidly around the Chinese Internet in 2011 put it, “It’s better to do one bad thing with your boss than a hundred good things for your boss. Over time, this can extend to an actual exchange of what criminologist Diego Gambetta in his pioneering Codes of the Underworld calls “hostage-information,” mutual knowledge of each party’s sins that acts as a powerful guarantee neither will break their agreements."
And, "But vice serves as a kind of screen, weeding out the rare few who might have moral qualms about future dealings. It tells both sides that they’re playing by the same rules."
It's not just vice. There is an aspect of these transgression trust rituals in pretty much every organization I have seen.
What I read in this article is that vice is collateral in a relationship, where if there is no collateral, there is no basis on which to trust someone.
But as the article points out, it's not actually a good way of building trust:
"I told my husband that if he cheats on his wife only after a year, he will cheat us. He said no way, he’s a good guy, we can trust him!” She looked a little smug. “Now this man owes us a lot of money that he won’t pay.”"
It's completely true...if you get the impression that someone has dubious morals, they will just as easily cheat you. I never trust anyone in business who even hints at breaking the law or cheating on anything.
Arguably that particular situation was more a symptom of bringing a paramour to where spouses would be present, demonstrating disrespect for his clients relationships (and in turn his clients). That was the tell.
People generally don't cheat their in-groups, and these vice collateral rituals establish in-group status. Showing disrespect to the values of a group is a good indicator your perceived cost of defection is low. Signalling you don't value your collateral is a good way to put off counterparties.
The guy showing up with a mistress showed not that he was necessarily immoral, but rather, that he didn't value the esteem of his clients or vice collateral he had established.
In my own experience, people who have dubious morals are not good for business.
>People generally don't cheat their in-groups
Perhaps "less likely". My own experience is that people who try to bend the rules are less intelligent, and less likely to be successful. This seems to be backed up by research:
Probably the most meaningful aspect of this article, "But the purpose of these visits isn’t a good time. It’s to cement business and personal ties, binding men together through the power of taboo and mutual self-exposure, or at least the pretense of it. It lets them judge that the others involved in a potential deal are men of the same stripe."
And one paragraph down, " As one saying that went rapidly around the Chinese Internet in 2011 put it, “It’s better to do one bad thing with your boss than a hundred good things for your boss. Over time, this can extend to an actual exchange of what criminologist Diego Gambetta in his pioneering Codes of the Underworld calls “hostage-information,” mutual knowledge of each party’s sins that acts as a powerful guarantee neither will break their agreements."
And, "But vice serves as a kind of screen, weeding out the rare few who might have moral qualms about future dealings. It tells both sides that they’re playing by the same rules."
It's not just vice. There is an aspect of these transgression trust rituals in pretty much every organization I have seen.
What I read in this article is that vice is collateral in a relationship, where if there is no collateral, there is no basis on which to trust someone.