A quick google search using the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals a number of courses that are offered for approximately $250-$500 dollars a day. Add this on the air fare, meals and lodging and you have easily spent thousands to go to this type 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!
While you click through the tabs you can see all the services available: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and a multitude of courses that are offered; from Handgun Training to High Risk Environments. And, in the event you sign up for a training course now, you receive a 10% discount in your next outrageously priced course! With all of these great pictures and all sorts of these types of services that are offered, they have to be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Several of these websites are more much like the Wizard of Oz compared to Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain is usually a big disappointment. Nevertheless, you wouldn’t understand that from looking at the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots of this word pertain to masculinity being preferable over femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in america is described as a “strong or exaggerated experience of masculinity stressing attributes like physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated sensation of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception many people have of your http://www.tacticalsupportservice.com/. In reality, a number of these types of personalities are drawn to the profession. There are additional reasons as well.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper in the Annual Meeting of your National Council on Family Relations in 1985 entitled; A Theory for the Development of Machismo. The abstract reads as follows: “With modifications in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have begun to examine the thought 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 aggressive than females, a se-x difference which appears to experience a genetic base. An advanced theory of sociobiology offers another explanation for macho behavior. Based on 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 for an expression of your inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is fixed for the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the us shows that lower class males have problems with job insecurity and make amends for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and also subordinating women. Other studies denote distant father-son relationships as one factor leading to feelings of inferiority as well as to the development 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 may be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo may decline and the incidences of males feeling self-esteem and women feeling equal to men may rise”.
Using this pool of folks, we would anticipate seeing people enlisting in professions like Executive Protection because they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate by entering a risky profession, which actually enables them to feel superior. I could affirmatively assert this is correct. The majority of my business is training, and i also have probably trained several thousand students at this moment during my career. Among the courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a compact percentage, I have met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to manage some psychological inadequacy. Does the term, “wannabe” sound familiar?
Exactly why do Boys and Girls 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, boys and girls prefer to fiddle with different kinds of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically opt to fiddle with dolls. Exactly why is this? A traditional sociological explanation is that girls and boys are socialized and encouraged 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 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 a incredibly ingenious study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, Alexander and Hines gave two stereotypically masculine toys (a ball and a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll along with a cooking pot), as well as 2 neutral toys (a picture book along with 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 curiosity about the masculine toys, as well as the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater fascination with the feminine toys. The two s-exes did not differ within their preference to the neutral toys.
Within 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 people in another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study demonstrates that, when given a choice between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (like a wagon, a truck, plus a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (for example 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 to the feminine toys, however the difference with their preference is not statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director in the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace and also the author of Why Kids Kill: Within the Minds of School Shooters. He wrote a write-up published in Psychology Today; The Career Aspiration of Shooters. From that article: “The pattern of thwarted careers in law enforcement or the military can be found among serial killers and school shooters, as well as a minumum of one spree killer. What significance can there be to the pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ interest in the military could have been their try to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into an acceptable outlet. Their tacticalsupportservice.com could also are already motivated by what Dr. Katherine Newman calls “the failure of manhood.” For young tact1cal who had fragile identities, joining the military could have been seen as a strategy for establishing masculine identities for their own reasons. Their failures to make this happen goal could have enjoyed a devastating effect on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an attempt to demonstrate the entire world just how capable these folks were of making use of weapons. They can have taken their rejections and failures being a personal assault on their masculinity, and consequently felt driven to show to the world that they were powerful men indeed”.
