A simple google search making use of the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals a variety of courses available for around $250-$500 dollars each day. Add this towards the air fare, meals and lodging and you 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 can be testosterone heaven. But wait…..there’s more!
As you click from the tabs you can see all the services accessible: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and a multitude of courses accessible; from Handgun Training to Heavy Risk Environments. And, should you register for a course now, you get yourself a 10% discount on your next outrageously priced course! With most of these great pictures and all of these facilities that are offered, they must be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! A number of these websites are more like the Wizard of Oz in comparison to the Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain can be a big disappointment. However, you wouldn’t know that from studying the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots with this word relate to masculinity being better than femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the usa is identified as a “strong or exaggerated sense of masculinity stressing attributes including physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated experience of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception a lot of people have from the tacticalsupportservice.com. In fact, most of these types of personalities are interested in the profession. There are additional reasons as well.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper on 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 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 usually 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. Based on this theory, a lot of animal, and maybe human, behavior is relying on the drive for one’s genes to breed themselves. A generally accepted psychological theory views machismo as being an expression of your inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is fixed on the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the United States implies that lower class males have problems with job insecurity and make up for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and through subordinating women. Other studies indicate distant father-son relationships as one factor resulting in feelings of inferiority and also to the growth 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 which is 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 confidence and girls feeling comparable to men may rise”.
Out of this pool of people, we will anticipate seeing women and men enlisting in professions like Executive Protection because they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate simply by entering an unsafe profession, which actually helps them feel superior. I will affirmatively assert this really is. The bulk of my business is training, and that i have probably trained several thousand students at this stage during my career. One of the courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a small percentage, We have met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to manage some psychological inadequacy. Does the word, “wannabe” sound familiar?
Exactly why do Boys and Girls Prefer Different Toys, is surely an article published in Psychology Today. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at LSE is credited. An excerpt out of this article: “All over the world, boys and girls prefer to enjoy several types of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically elect to enjoy dolls. Exactly why is this? A normal sociological explanation is the fact that girls and boys are socialized and inspired to enjoy several types 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 in 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 and a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll along with a cooking pot), as well as two neutral toys (a photo book as well as 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 every. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the masculine toys, along with the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater desire for the feminine toys. The 2 s-exes did not differ with their preference to 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 people in another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study demonstrates that, when given an option between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (like a wagon, a truck, plus a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (including Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, along with a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for that masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for your feminine toys, but the difference with their preference will not be 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 and the military are available among serial killers and school shooters, as well as at least one spree killer. What significance could there be to this 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 a satisfactory outlet. Their www.tacticalsupportservice.com strike security can 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 viewed as a way of establishing masculine identities by themselves. Their failures to accomplish this goal may have had a devastating influence on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an effort to demonstrate the globe precisely how capable these folks were of using weapons. They may took their rejections and failures like a personal assault on the masculinity, and thus felt driven to demonstrate around the world that they were powerful men indeed”.