A fast google search using the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals a variety of courses that are available for roughly $250-$500 dollars every day. Add this on the air fare, meals and lodging and you will have easily spent thousands to attend this kind of training. The websites that supply this training look slick, with professional rotating pictures of limousines, private jets, yachts, limos and guys with guns. It really is testosterone heaven. But wait…..there’s more!
While you click from the tabs the truth is every one of the services accessible: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and a variety of courses that are offered; from Handgun Training to High-risk Environments. And, when you sign up for a training course now, you get a 10% discount on your next outrageously priced course! With every one of these great pictures and these facilities that are offered, they should be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Many of these websites are more much like the Wizard of Oz than the Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain is often a big disappointment. Nevertheless, you wouldn’t recognize that from checking out the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots on this word have to do with masculinity being preferable over femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the United States is identified as a “strong or exaggerated feeling of masculinity stressing attributes for example physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated sensation of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception many people have in the http://www.tacticalsupportservice.com/. In fact, a number of these types of personalities are drawn to the profession. There are other reasons at the same time.
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 the following: “With changes in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have started to examine the very idea of machismo. Two characteristics dominant in the study of machismo are aggressiveness and hyper-se-xuality. A biological kind of machismo asserts that males everywhere are certainly more aggressive than females, a se-x difference which appears to get a genetic base. An advanced theory of sociobiology offers another explanation for macho behavior. In accordance with this theory, much of animal, and possibly human, behavior is influenced by the drive for one’s genes to reproduce themselves. A generally accepted psychological theory views machismo being an expression of your inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is restricted on the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and america implies that lower class males experience job insecurity and compensate for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and also subordinating women. Other studies indicate distant father-son relationships as one factor leading to feelings of inferiority and also to the introduction of machismo. Women may support machismo by being submissive, dependent, and passive. The mixture of feeling inferior and acting superior is machismo, a trait which is repeated generation after generation. If men can be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo may decline as well as the incidences of men feeling confidence and females feeling equal to men may rise”.
Using this pool of folks, we will expect to see men and women enlisting in professions like Executive Protection as they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate by entering an unsafe profession, which in turn enables them to feel superior. I could affirmatively assert this really is. The bulk of my business is training, and that i have probably trained several thousand students at this time within my career. One of the courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a tiny percentage, We have met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to cope with some psychological inadequacy. Does the phrase, “wannabe” sound familiar?
How come Girls and boys Prefer Different Toys, is undoubtedly an article published in Psychology Today. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at LSE is credited. An excerpt from this article: “Throughout the world, girls and boys want to play with various kinds of toys. Boys typically enjoy playing with cars and trucks, while girls typically choose to have fun with dolls. How come this? A regular sociological explanation is boys and girls are socialized and inspired to fiddle with different kinds 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 inside london stunned the scientific world by showing that vervet monkeys showed exactly the same 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 as well as a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll along with a cooking pot), and 2 neutral toys (a picture book as well as a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. Then they assessed the monkeys’ preference for each and every toy by measuring the length of time they spent with every. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater desire for the masculine toys, and also the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater curiosity about the feminine toys. The two s-exes failed to differ with their preference for that neutral toys.
Inside a 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 members of another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study shows that, when given a decision between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (say for example a wagon, a truck, plus 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 to the masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for that feminine toys, but the difference in their preference is just not statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director on the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace and the author of Why Kids Kill: In 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 law enforcement and the military can be obtained among serial killers and school shooters, as well as a minumum of one spree killer. What significance is there to the pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ curiosity about the military seemed to be their make an effort to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into an acceptable outlet. Their www.tacticalsupportservice.com strike security may also happen to be motivated with what Dr. Katherine Newman calls “the failure of manhood.” For young tact1cal who had fragile identities, joining the military could have been viewed as a means of establishing masculine identities for their own reasons. Their failures to do this goal might have enjoyed a devastating impact on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an attempt to show the planet precisely how capable they were of making use of weapons. They could have got their rejections and failures like a personal assault on his or her masculinity, and therefore felt driven to show to the world they were powerful men indeed”.