A brief google search utilizing the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals several courses that are available for about $250-$500 dollars per day. Add this for the air fare, meals and lodging and you will have easily spent lots of money to visit this type of training. The websites that offer this training look slick, with professional rotating pictures of limousines, private jets, yachts, limos and guys with guns. It is testosterone heaven. But wait…..there’s more!
As you may click with the tabs the thing is every one of the services that are offered: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and a multitude of courses accessible; from Handgun Training to High-risk Environments. And, should you register for a course now, you have a 10% discount on your own next outrageously priced course! With every one of these great pictures and all these types of services accessible, they should be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Several of these websites tend to be more like the Wizard of Oz in comparison to the Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain can be a big disappointment. Nevertheless, you wouldn’t realize that from checking out the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots with this word pertain to masculinity being superior to femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the states is described as a “strong or exaggerated sensation of masculinity stressing attributes such as physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated feeling of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception many individuals have of the tacticalsupportservice.com. The truth is, a number of these kinds of personalities are attracted to the profession. There are many reasons also.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Family Relations in 1985 entitled; A Theory for the growth of Machismo. The abstract reads as follows: “With alterations in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have begun to examine the concept of machismo. Two characteristics dominant in the study of machismo are aggressiveness and hyper-se-xuality. A biological style of machismo asserts that males everywhere tend to be more aggressive than females, a se-x difference which appears to have a genetic base. A modern theory of sociobiology offers another explanation for macho behavior. As outlined by this theory, most of animal, and perhaps human, behavior is affected by the drive for one’s genes to reproduce themselves. A generally accepted psychological theory views machismo as an expression of the inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is fixed for the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and america shows that lower class males suffer from job insecurity and make up for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and by subordinating women. Other studies point out distant father-son relationships as you factor ultimately causing feelings of inferiority and also to the creation of machismo. Women may support machismo when you are submissive, dependent, and passive. A combination of feeling inferior and acting superior is machismo, a trait that is repeated generation after generation. If men might be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo may decline and the incidences of men feeling confidence and ladies feeling equal to men may rise”.
With this pool of men and women, we might anticipate seeing men and women enlisting in professions like Executive Protection because they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate by entering a hazardous profession, which enables them to feel superior. I could affirmatively assert this is true. The bulk of my company is training, and i also have probably trained several thousand students at this stage during my career. One of several courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a little percentage, We have met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to manage some psychological inadequacy. Does the saying, “wannabe” sound familiar?
Exactly why do Girls and boys Prefer Different Toys, is surely an article published in Psychology Today. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at LSE is credited. An excerpt with this article: “All over the world, boys and girls choose to enjoy various kinds of toys. Boys typically enjoy playing with cars and trucks, while girls typically opt to play with dolls. Why is this? A traditional sociological explanation is the fact that girls and boys are socialized and asked to play with different types of toys by their parents, peers, and also the “society.” Growing scientific evidence suggests, however, that boys’ and girls’ toy preferences may have a biological origin. In 2002, Gerianne M. Alexander of Texas A&M University and Melissa Hines of City University in the uk stunned the scientific world by showing that vervet monkeys showed a similar se-x-typical toy preferences as humans. In a incredibly ingenious study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, Alexander and Hines gave two stereotypically masculine toys (a ball along with a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll plus a cooking pot), and 2 neutral toys (a photograph book and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. They then assessed the monkeys’ preference for each and every toy by measuring the time they spent with each. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater desire for the masculine toys, and also the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater fascination with the feminine toys. Both the s-exes did not differ in their preference for the neutral toys.
In the forthcoming article in Hormones and Behavior, Janice M. Hassett, Erin R. Siebert, and Kim Wallen, of Emory University, replicate the s-ex preferences in toys among individuals another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study shows that, when given an option between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (such as a wagon, a truck, as well as a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (including Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, as well as a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for that masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for that feminine toys, but the difference inside their preference will not be statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director at the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace and also the author of Why Kids Kill: Inside of the Minds of School Shooters. He wrote articles published in Psychology Today; The Career Aspiration of Shooters. From that article: “The pattern of thwarted careers in police force or the military can be found among serial killers and school shooters, as well as at least one spree killer. What significance could there be to this particular pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ fascination with the military could have been their attempt to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into a satisfactory outlet. Their strike security tactical support service can also have been motivated with what Dr. Katherine Newman calls “the failure of manhood.” For young tact1cal who had fragile identities, joining the military might have been seen as a strategy for establishing masculine identities on their own. Their failures to achieve this goal might have possessed a devastating influence on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an effort to demonstrate the globe precisely how capable these folks were of using weapons. They may took their rejections and failures as a personal assault on their masculinity, and thus felt driven to demonstrate to everyone that they were powerful men indeed”.