A quick search on the internet while using words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals a variety of courses that are offered for approximately $250-$500 dollars every day. Add this to the air fare, meals and lodging and you have easily spent 1000s of dollars to go to 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 really is testosterone heaven. But wait…..there’s more!
When you click throughout the tabs the thing is all the services available: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and a variety of courses available; from Handgun Training to High-risk Environments. And, when you sign up for a training course now, you get yourself a 10% discount on the next outrageously priced course! With all of these great pictures and all these facilities available, they should 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 is often a big disappointment. But you wouldn’t understand that from checking out the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots of the word relate to masculinity being better than femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the states is defined as a “strong or exaggerated feeling of masculinity stressing attributes like physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated sense of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception a lot of people have from the http://www.tacticalsupportservice.com. The truth is, a number of these varieties of personalities are interested in the profession. There are additional reasons also.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper on the Annual Meeting from the National Council on Family Relations in 1985 entitled; A Theory for the growth of Machismo. The abstract reads the following: “With modifications in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have started to examine the idea of machismo. Two characteristics dominant in the study of machismo are aggressiveness and hyper-se-xuality. A biological model of machismo asserts that males everywhere tend to be aggressive than females, a se-x difference which appears to experience a genetic base. A modern theory of sociobiology offers another explanation for macho behavior. Based on this theory, a lot of animal, and perhaps human, behavior is relying on 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 fixed on the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and america suggests that lower class males have problems with job insecurity and make up for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and also subordinating women. Other studies denote distant father-son relationships as one factor ultimately causing feelings of inferiority as well as to the introduction of machismo. Women may support machismo by being submissive, dependent, and passive. The combination 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 females feeling similar to men may rise”.
Out of this pool of individuals, we will anticipate seeing individuals enlisting in professions like Executive Protection since they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate simply by entering a risky profession, which enables them to feel superior. I will affirmatively assert this is true. The majority of my business is training, and so i have probably trained several thousand students at this time in my career. One of several courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a tiny percentage, I actually have met my share of overcompensating students trying to handle some psychological inadequacy. Does the saying, “wannabe” sound familiar?
How come 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 from this article: “All over the world, boys and girls want to fiddle with different kinds of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically opt to enjoy dolls. The reason why this? A regular sociological explanation is the fact boys and girls are socialized and inspired to play with different types of toys by their parents, peers, along with 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 a similar se-x-typical toy preferences as humans. Inside 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 two neutral toys (a photograph book and 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 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 interest in the feminine toys. Both s-exes failed to differ in their preference for that 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 shows that, when given a decision between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (for instance 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 to the masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference to the feminine toys, however the difference in their preference is just not statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director at the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace and also the author of Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters. He wrote articles published in Psychology Today; The Career Aspiration of Shooters. From that article: “The pattern of thwarted careers in police force and/or the military is available among serial killers and school shooters, along with one or more spree killer. What significance will there be to this particular pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ curiosity about the military could have been their make an effort to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into a sufficient outlet. Their www.tacticalsupportservice.com may 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 method of establishing masculine identities for their own reasons. Their failures to achieve this goal may have experienced a devastating influence on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an attempt to exhibit the world just how capable they were of using weapons. They could have taken their rejections and failures as a personal assault on their own masculinity, and therefore felt driven to indicate around the globe that they were powerful men indeed”.