A brief online search making use of the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals several 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 visit this sort of training. The websites offering 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!
When you click from the tabs you see every one of the services available: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all types, and a multitude of courses that are offered; from Handgun Training to Heavy Risk Environments. And, in the event you register for a training course now, you have a 10% discount in your next outrageously priced course! With most of these great pictures and these types of services that are offered, they have to 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. Nevertheless, you wouldn’t realize that from exploring the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots on this word have to do with masculinity being superior to femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the usa is described as a “strong or exaggerated experience 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. The truth is, a number of these forms of personalities are drawn to the profession. There are many reasons also.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper with the Annual Meeting in the National Council on Family Relations in 1985 entitled; A Theory for the introduction of Machismo. The abstract reads the following: “With changes in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have begun to examine the concept of machismo. Two characteristics dominant in the research into 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, much of animal, and maybe 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 an inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is fixed to the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the us suggests that lower class males are afflicted by job insecurity and make amends for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and by subordinating women. Other studies point out distant father-son relationships as you factor leading to feelings of inferiority and also to the creation 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 repeated generation after generation. If men might be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo may decline as well as the incidences of men feeling confidence and women feeling equivalent to men may rise”.
Out of this pool of people, we will anticipate seeing men and women enlisting in professions like Executive Protection because they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate by entering a dangerous profession, which helps them feel superior. I will affirmatively assert this really is. The majority of my business is training, and I have probably trained several thousand students at this moment in my career. One of several courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a tiny percentage, We have met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to manage some psychological inadequacy. Does the phrase, “wannabe” sound familiar?
So why do Boys and Girls Prefer Different Toys, is definitely an article published in Psychology Today. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at LSE is credited. An excerpt with this article: “All over the world, boys and girls prefer to have fun with various kinds of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically choose to play with dolls. Why is this? A conventional sociological explanation is that boys and girls are socialized and inspired to have fun with different types 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 inside london stunned the scientific world by showing that vervet monkeys showed the identical 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 along with a cooking pot), as well as 2 neutral toys (a picture book plus a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. Then they assessed the monkeys’ preference for each and every toy by measuring how much time they spent with every. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater curiosity about the masculine toys, and the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater desire for the feminine toys. The two s-exes did not differ inside their preference for your 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 individuals another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study demonstrates that, when given a choice between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (such as a wagon, a truck, as well as 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 the masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for that feminine toys, however the difference within their preference is not 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: 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 or the military can be found among serial killers and school shooters, and also at least one spree killer. What significance can there be for this pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ interest in the military might have been their make an attempt to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into an acceptable outlet. Their tacticalsupportservice.com may also happen to be motivated with what Dr. Katherine Newman calls “the failure of manhood.” For young tact1cal who had fragile identities, joining the military might have been seen as a way of establishing masculine identities by themselves. Their failures to do this goal could possibly have had a devastating effect on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an effort to demonstrate the entire world just how capable these people were of employing weapons. They could took their rejections and failures as a personal assault on the masculinity, and thus felt driven to demonstrate around the world that they were powerful men indeed”.