A brief search on the internet while using words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals numerous courses that are available for roughly $250-$500 dollars each day. Add this for the air fare, meals and lodging and you will have easily spent thousands of dollars to attend this type of training. The websites that provide 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!
As you may click through the tabs the truth is every one of the services accessible: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all types, and a multitude of courses accessible; from Handgun Training to High Risk Environments. And, if you sign up for a course now, you get a 10% discount in your next outrageously priced course! With most of these great pictures and all sorts of these services available, they must be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Several of these websites are more like the Wizard of Oz compared to Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain can be a big disappointment. Nevertheless, you wouldn’t understand that from studying the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots of this word pertain to masculinity being superior to femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in america 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 of the http://www.tacticalsupportservice.com/. In reality, several of these types of personalities are fascinated by the profession. There are many reasons too.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper with the Annual Meeting from 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 started to examine the 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 day theory of sociobiology offers another explanation for macho behavior. In accordance with this theory, a great deal of animal, and perhaps human, behavior is affected by the drive for one’s genes to breed themselves. A generally accepted psychological theory views machismo being an expression of any inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is restricted for the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the us suggests that lower class males experience job insecurity and compensate for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and through subordinating women. Other studies denote distant father-son relationships as one factor ultimately causing feelings of inferiority and also to the creation of machismo. Women may support machismo when you are submissive, dependent, and passive. The mix 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 also the incidences of men feeling self-esteem and women feeling equal to men may rise”.
With this pool of people, we may anticipate seeing men and women enlisting in professions like Executive Protection since they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate by entering a risky profession, which in turn helps them feel superior. I can affirmatively assert this really is. The bulk of my business is training, and that i have probably trained several thousand students at this point in my career. One of many courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a small percentage, I actually have met my share of overcompensating students trying to handle some psychological inadequacy. Does the saying, “wannabe” sound familiar?
Exactly why do 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 out of this article: “Across the world, boys and girls choose to fiddle with different types of toys. Boys typically enjoy playing with cars and trucks, while girls typically elect to enjoy dolls. How come this? A conventional sociological explanation is girls and boys are socialized and asked to play 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 may 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 and a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll as well as a cooking pot), and 2 neutral toys (a photograph book as well as 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 length of time they spent with every. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater fascination with the masculine toys, and the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater fascination with the feminine toys. Both s-exes failed to differ inside 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 choice between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (for instance a wagon, a truck, and a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (including Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, and a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for the masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for your feminine toys, nevertheless the difference in their preference is not really statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director with 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 a write-up published in Psychology Today; The Career Aspiration of Shooters. From that article: “The pattern of thwarted careers in police force or the military are available among serial killers and school shooters, and also a minumum of one spree killer. What significance could there be to the pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ curiosity about the military may have been their try to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into a satisfactory outlet. Their tacticalsupportservice.com 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 seemed to be seen as a way of establishing masculine identities for their own reasons. Their failures to do this goal may have enjoyed a devastating affect on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an attempt to show the planet exactly how capable these people were of using weapons. They could took their rejections and failures like a personal assault on their own masculinity, and thus felt driven to demonstrate to everyone that they were powerful men indeed”.