A brief internet search utilizing the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals numerous courses that are offered for approximately $250-$500 dollars every day. Add this for the air fare, meals and lodging and you have easily spent thousands to visit this sort of training. The websites offering 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 you can see each of the services which can be found: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and numerous courses available; from Handgun Training to High Risk Environments. And, should you register for a course now, you get a 10% discount on your next outrageously priced course! With every one of these great pictures and all of these types of services which can be found, they have to be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Several of these websites are more just like the Wizard of Oz compared to the Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain is often a big disappointment. But you wouldn’t understand that from looking at the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots of this word have to do with masculinity being preferable over femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the United States is defined as a “strong or exaggerated experience 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 individuals have of your tacticalsupportservice.com. In reality, several of these forms of personalities are drawn to the profession. There are more reasons too.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper in the Annual Meeting in the National Council on Family Relations in 1985 entitled; A Theory for the Development of Machismo. The abstract reads the following: “With variations in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have started to examine the very idea of machismo. Two characteristics dominant in study regarding machismo are aggressiveness and hyper-se-xuality. A biological model of machismo asserts that males everywhere are certainly 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 maybe human, behavior is relying on the drive for one’s genes to reproduce themselves. A generally accepted psychological theory views machismo for an expression of an inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is restricted on the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the United States demonstrates that lower class males have problems with job insecurity and make amends for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and also by subordinating women. Other studies indicate distant father-son relationships as you factor ultimately causing feelings of inferiority as well as the creation of machismo. Women may support machismo because they are submissive, dependent, and passive. The mixture of feeling inferior and acting superior is machismo, a trait that is certainly repeated generation after generation. If men may be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo may decline and the incidences of men feeling self-esteem and girls feeling comparable to men may rise”.
From this pool of folks, we may expect to see people enlisting in professions like Executive Protection since they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate simply by entering a hazardous profession, which actually helps them feel superior. I will affirmatively assert this really is. The bulk of my company is training, and I have probably trained several thousand students at this moment in my career. One of many courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a compact percentage, I have got met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to deal with some psychological inadequacy. Does the phrase, “wannabe” sound familiar?
How come Girls and boys Prefer Different Toys, is an article published in Psychology Today. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at LSE is credited. An excerpt with this article: “Across the world, girls and boys would rather have fun with different kinds of toys. Boys typically enjoy playing with cars and trucks, while girls typically opt to fiddle with dolls. The reason why this? A regular sociological explanation is the fact boys and girls are socialized and motivated to enjoy different kinds of toys by their parents, peers, and the “society.” Growing scientific evidence suggests, however, that boys’ and girls’ toy preferences could 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 the same se-x-typical toy preferences as humans. Inside an incredibly ingenious study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, Alexander and Hines gave two stereotypically masculine toys (a ball plus a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll plus a cooking pot), and 2 neutral toys (an image book and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. Then they assessed the monkeys’ preference for every toy by measuring the time they spent with each. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater fascination with the masculine toys, and also the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the feminine toys. The two s-exes did not differ within their preference for the neutral toys.
In 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 reveals that, when given a decision between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (for instance a wagon, a truck, as well as a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (like Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, and a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for your masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for your feminine toys, but the difference in their preference is not statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director in the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace along with the author of Why Kids Kill: Inside of the Minds of School Shooters. He wrote an article published in Psychology Today; The Career Aspiration of Shooters. From that article: “The pattern of thwarted careers in law enforcement or the military are available among serial killers and school shooters, and also a minimum of one spree killer. What significance can there be to this pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ fascination with the military may have been their attempt to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into a sufficient outlet. Their www.tacticalsupportservice.com may also have already been 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 themselves. Their failures to accomplish this goal may have enjoyed a devastating effect on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an effort to indicate 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 so felt driven to show around the globe they were powerful men indeed”.