A simple search on the internet making use of the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals several courses available for approximately $250-$500 dollars a day. Add this for the air fare, meals and lodging and you will have easily spent thousands of dollars to visit this type of training. The websites that offer 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!
While you click throughout the tabs the truth is all of the services accessible: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all types, and a multitude of courses that are offered; from Handgun Training to High-risk Environments. And, if you register for a course now, you have a 10% discount on your own next outrageously priced course! With many 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 definitely more much 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 realize that from checking out the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots of this word pertain to masculinity being preferable over femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the United States is defined as a “strong or exaggerated sensation of masculinity stressing attributes including physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated feeling of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception many individuals have of your tacticalsupportservice.com. In reality, most of these kinds of personalities are interested in the profession. There are additional reasons also.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper at 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 changes in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have begun to examine the thought of machismo. Two characteristics dominant in the study of machismo are aggressiveness and hyper-se-xuality. A biological kind 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. As outlined by this theory, most of animal, and maybe human, behavior is influenced 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 restricted on the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the usa demonstrates that lower class males are afflicted by job insecurity and make up for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and also by subordinating women. Other studies point to distant father-son relationships as one factor creating feelings of inferiority and to the growth 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 may be 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 self-esteem and girls feeling equal to men may rise”.
With this pool of folks, we may anticipate seeing people enlisting in professions like Executive Protection because they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate simply by entering a risky profession, which enables them to feel superior. I could affirmatively assert this is true. The majority of my business is training, and so i have probably trained several thousand students at this time inside my career. One of several courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a little percentage, I actually have met my share of overcompensating students trying to manage some psychological inadequacy. Does the saying, “wannabe” sound familiar?
So 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 with this article: “Throughout the world, girls and boys would rather play with several types of toys. Boys typically enjoy playing with cars and trucks, while girls typically opt to have fun with dolls. Why is this? A normal sociological explanation is that boys and girls are socialized and encouraged to fiddle with several types of toys by their parents, peers, as well as 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 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 as well as a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll and a cooking pot), and two neutral toys (a photo book and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. They then assessed the monkeys’ preference for each toy by measuring the length of time they spent with every. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater fascination with the masculine toys, and the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater curiosity about the feminine toys. Both s-exes failed to differ in their preference for the neutral toys.
Inside 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 decision between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (for instance a wagon, a truck, as well as a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (including Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, plus a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for that masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for the feminine toys, however the difference within their preference is not statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director on the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace and the author of Why Kids Kill: In 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 law enforcement and the military is available among serial killers and school shooters, in addition to at least one spree killer. What significance can there be to this particular pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ curiosity about the military might have been their attempt to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into a satisfactory outlet. Their www.tacticalsupportservice.com could also have already been 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 for their own reasons. Their failures to make this happen goal could possibly have experienced a devastating influence on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an attempt to demonstrate the world precisely how capable these people were of making use of weapons. They can have taken their rejections and failures as being a personal assault on their masculinity, and thus felt driven to show to everyone that they were powerful men indeed”.