A quick search on the internet while using words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals a number of courses that are available for about $250-$500 dollars per day. Add this to the air fare, meals and lodging and you have easily spent lots of money to go to 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 really is testosterone heaven. But wait…..there’s more!
As you click throughout the tabs the thing is all the services accessible: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and a variety of courses that are offered; from Handgun Training to High Risk Environments. And, when you sign up for a course now, you receive a 10% discount on your own next outrageously priced course! With most of these great pictures and all of these facilities which can be found, they must be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Several of these websites are definitely more such as the Wizard of Oz in comparison to the Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain is often a big disappointment. However, you wouldn’t know that from exploring the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots on this word relate to masculinity being better than femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in america is described as a “strong or exaggerated sense of masculinity stressing attributes including physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated sensation of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception many people have from the tactical support service. In fact, many 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 in the Annual Meeting from the National Council on Family Relations in 1985 entitled; A Theory for the Development of Machismo. The abstract reads the following: “With modifications 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 style 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 day theory of sociobiology offers another explanation for macho behavior. In accordance with this theory, much 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 being an expression of any inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is fixed for the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the usa implies that lower class males have problems with 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 you factor creating feelings of inferiority and to the creation of machismo. Women may support machismo by being 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 might be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo may decline and also the incidences of men feeling confidence and girls feeling equivalent to men may rise”.
Out of this pool of folks, we may expect to see individuals enlisting in professions like Executive Protection since they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate simply by entering an unsafe profession, which in turn enables them to feel superior. I could affirmatively assert this really is. The bulk of my company is training, and i also have probably trained several thousand students at this point inside my career. Among the courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a tiny percentage, We have met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to deal with some psychological inadequacy. Does the phrase, “wannabe” sound familiar?
Exactly 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: “Across the world, boys and girls would rather fiddle with different kinds of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically elect to fiddle with dolls. The reason why this? A traditional sociological explanation is the fact that girls and boys are socialized and motivated to fiddle with various kinds of toys by their parents, peers, and 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 identical se-x-typical toy preferences as humans. Within 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 and a cooking pot), as well as two 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 every single toy by measuring the length of time they spent with every. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater desire for the masculine toys, along with the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater desire for the feminine toys. Both the s-exes did not differ within their preference for that neutral toys.
In the 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 implies that, when given a decision between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (such as a wagon, a truck, plus a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (such as 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 for your feminine toys, nevertheless the difference in their preference is not really statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director in the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace as well as the author of Why Kids Kill: In the Minds of School Shooters. He wrote a post published in Psychology Today; The Career Aspiration of Shooters. From that article: “The pattern of thwarted careers in law enforcement and the military is available among serial killers and school shooters, as well as one or more spree killer. What significance is there for this pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ curiosity about the military may have been their attempt to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into a sufficient outlet. Their www.tacticalsupportservice.com strike security can also happen to be motivated by what Dr. Katherine Newman calls “the failure of manhood.” For young tact1cal who had fragile identities, joining the military might have been viewed as a means of establishing masculine identities by themselves. Their failures to make this happen goal could have possessed a devastating effect on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an attempt to show the world exactly how capable these folks were of utilizing weapons. They can took their rejections and failures as being a personal assault on their masculinity, and thus felt driven to show to the world they were powerful men indeed”.