A simple search on the internet while using words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals numerous courses that exist for roughly $250-$500 dollars a day. Add this for the air fare, meals and lodging and you have easily spent lots of money to visit this particular training. The websites that supply this training look slick, with professional rotating pictures of limousines, private jets, yachts, limos and guys with guns. It is actually testosterone heaven. But wait…..there’s more!
As you click with the tabs the truth is each of the services accessible: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and a multitude of courses accessible; from Handgun Training to Dangerous Environments. And, if you register for a training course now, you get a 10% discount on your own next outrageously priced course! With most of these great pictures and all of these services accessible, they must be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! A number of these websites tend to be more much like the Wizard of Oz than the Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain is usually a big disappointment. However, you wouldn’t realize that from checking out the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots of the word have to do with masculinity being preferable over femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the states is described as a “strong or exaggerated sense of masculinity stressing attributes including physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated sense of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception many people have from the www.tacticalsupportservice.com. Actually, several of these types of personalities are interested in the profession. There are other reasons also.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper on the Annual Meeting in the National Council on Family Relations in 1985 entitled; A Theory for the introduction of Machismo. The abstract reads as follows: “With variations in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have started to examine the concept 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 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. According to this theory, most of animal, and maybe human, behavior is affected by the drive for one’s genes to breed themselves. A generally accepted psychological theory views machismo as an expression of the inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is restricted towards the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the United States shows that lower class males are afflicted by job insecurity and make amends for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and through subordinating women. Other studies indicate distant father-son relationships as you factor leading to feelings of inferiority as well as the creation of machismo. Women may support machismo because they are 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 and the incidences of males feeling confidence and ladies feeling equal to men may rise”.
With this pool of men and women, we may anticipate seeing men and women enlisting in professions like Executive Protection because they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate simply by entering a dangerous profession, which in turn helps them feel superior. I could affirmatively assert this is correct. The bulk of my company is training, and I have probably trained several thousand students at this moment inside my career. Among the courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a tiny percentage, I have got met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to manage some psychological inadequacy. Does the phrase, “wannabe” sound familiar?
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: “Throughout the world, boys and girls would rather play with different types of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically opt to play with dolls. The reason why this? A normal sociological explanation is the fact boys and girls are socialized and encouraged to fiddle with different kinds of toys by their parents, peers, and also the “society.” Growing scientific evidence suggests, however, that boys’ and girls’ toy preferences could have a biological origin. In 2002, Gerianne M. Alexander of Texas A&M University and Melissa Hines of City University in the uk stunned the scientific world by showing that vervet monkeys showed the identical 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 along with a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll and a cooking pot), and 2 neutral toys (a photo book and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. They then assessed the monkeys’ preference for every single toy by measuring how much time they spent with each. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater desire for the masculine toys, and also the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater desire for the feminine toys. Both the s-exes did not differ inside their preference for 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 implies that, when given a decision between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (like a wagon, a truck, and a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (for example 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, although the difference with their preference is just not statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director on the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace and also the author of Why Kids Kill: Inside 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 or the military can be obtained among serial killers and school shooters, in addition to a minumum of one spree killer. What significance is there to the pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ curiosity about the military could have been their try to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into a suitable outlet. Their www.tacticalsupportservice.com can also have 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 seen as a method of establishing masculine identities on their own. Their failures to do this goal could have had a devastating impact on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an attempt to show the globe exactly how capable these folks were of utilizing weapons. They may have taken their rejections and failures as a personal assault on their masculinity, and so felt driven to indicate around the world that they were powerful men indeed”.