A simple internet search making use of the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals a variety of courses that exist for about $250-$500 dollars every day. Add this towards the air fare, meals and lodging and you will have easily spent thousands of dollars to go this kind of training. The websites offering 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 with the tabs the thing is all of the services available: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and a variety of courses available; from Handgun Training to High-risk Environments. And, if you register for a course now, you have a 10% discount on the next outrageously priced course! With many of these great pictures and these services available, they must be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Several of these websites are more just like the Wizard of Oz than the Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain is often a big disappointment. But you wouldn’t recognize that from looking at the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots with this word relate to masculinity being preferable over femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the states is identified as a “strong or exaggerated feeling of masculinity stressing attributes like physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated sense of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception many individuals have of the tacticalsupportservice.com. The truth is, several of these varieties of personalities are drawn to the profession. There are other reasons at the same time.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper on the Annual Meeting of your 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 model of machismo asserts that males everywhere tend to be 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. Based on this theory, much of animal, and maybe human, behavior is influenced by the drive for one’s genes to breed themselves. A generally accepted psychological theory views machismo as an expression of any inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is restricted towards the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the United States shows that lower class males suffer from job insecurity and make up for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and also by subordinating women. Other studies point to distant father-son relationships as one factor resulting in feelings of inferiority and also to the development of machismo. Women may support machismo by being submissive, dependent, and passive. The combination 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 as well as the incidences of men feeling self-esteem and females feeling similar to men may rise”.
With this pool of men and women, we may expect to see individuals enlisting in professions like Executive Protection because they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate by entering an unsafe profession, which in turn helps them feel superior. I will affirmatively assert this really is. The majority of my business is training, and so i have probably trained several thousand students at this point inside my career. One of several courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a small percentage, I have got met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to cope with some psychological inadequacy. Does the saying, “wannabe” sound familiar?
So 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 using this article: “Throughout the world, boys and girls prefer to fiddle with different types of toys. Boys typically enjoy playing with cars and trucks, while girls typically decide to enjoy dolls. How come this? A conventional sociological explanation is boys and girls are socialized and asked to have fun with different kinds of toys by their parents, peers, as well as 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 London stunned the scientific world by showing that vervet monkeys showed the same se-x-typical toy preferences as humans. In an 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 and 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 length of time they spent with each. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the masculine toys, and the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater fascination with the feminine toys. The 2 s-exes did not differ within 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 individuals another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study shows that, when given a choice between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (such as a wagon, a truck, and a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (like Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, plus a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for your masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for the feminine toys, but the difference within their preference is not statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director at the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace as well as 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 police force and/or the military are available among serial killers and school shooters, as well as a minimum of one spree killer. What significance could there be to this particular pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ interest in the military may have been their attempt to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into a satisfactory outlet. Their tactical support service may also have already been motivated by what Dr. Katherine Newman calls “the failure of manhood.” For young tact1cal who had fragile identities, joining the military seemed to be seen as a way of establishing masculine identities for their own reasons. Their failures to achieve this goal may have had a devastating affect on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an effort to exhibit the world just how capable these people were of using weapons. They might have taken their rejections and failures being a personal assault on their masculinity, and so felt driven to indicate to the world that they were powerful men indeed”.