A quick online search while using words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals a variety of courses that exist for approximately $250-$500 dollars per day. Add this towards the air fare, meals and lodging and you will have easily spent 1000s of dollars to go to this particular training. The websites that offer 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!
While you click from the tabs you can see all of the services available: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and a multitude of courses available; from Handgun Training to High-risk Environments. And, should you sign up for a training course now, you get a 10% discount on the next outrageously priced course! With many of these great pictures and all these services accessible, they ought to be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Many of these websites will be more like the Wizard of Oz compared to Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain is often a big disappointment. However you wouldn’t understand that from checking out the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots of this word relate to masculinity being superior to femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the states is identified as a “strong or exaggerated sensation 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 tactical support service. In fact, a number of these forms of personalities are fascinated by the profession. There are more reasons also.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper at the Annual Meeting of your National Council on Family Relations in 1985 entitled; A Theory for the creation of Machismo. The abstract reads as follows: “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 model of machismo asserts that males everywhere are usually aggressive than females, a se-x difference which appears to have a genetic base. A contemporary theory of sociobiology offers another explanation for macho behavior. Based on this theory, most of animal, and perhaps 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 an inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is fixed for the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the usa demonstrates that lower class males experience job insecurity and compensate for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and by subordinating women. Other studies point to distant father-son relationships as you factor leading to feelings of inferiority as well as 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 is repeated generation after generation. If men can be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo may decline and also the incidences of men feeling confidence and girls feeling similar to men may rise”.
Using this pool of folks, we will expect to see people enlisting in professions like Executive Protection since they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate by entering a hazardous profession, which in turn enables them to feel superior. I can affirmatively assert this really is. The bulk of my business is training, and that i have probably trained several thousand students at this time inside my career. One of many courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a small percentage, I actually have met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to handle some psychological inadequacy. Does the phrase, “wannabe” sound familiar?
How come Girls and boys Prefer Different Toys, is undoubtedly an article published in Psychology Today. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at LSE is credited. An excerpt out of this article: “Throughout the world, girls and boys prefer to enjoy various kinds of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically decide to have fun with dolls. Exactly why is this? A conventional sociological explanation is boys and girls are socialized and motivated to have fun with various kinds of toys by their parents, peers, and 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 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 and a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll along with a cooking pot), and 2 neutral toys (an image book as well as a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. Then they assessed the monkeys’ preference for every toy by measuring how much time they spent with every. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the masculine toys, and also the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater curiosity about the feminine toys. Both the s-exes failed to differ within their preference for your neutral toys.
Within 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” (such as a wagon, a truck, as well as a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (like 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 for that feminine toys, however the difference with their preference is not statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director with the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace along with the author of Why Kids Kill: Within 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/or the military is available among serial killers and school shooters, as well as a minumum of one spree killer. What significance is there to the pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ fascination with the military seemed to be their make an effort to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into a sufficient outlet. Their strike security tactical support service may also are already motivated with what Dr. Katherine Newman calls “the failure of manhood.” For young tact1cal who had fragile identities, joining the military may have been viewed as a method of establishing masculine identities on their own. Their failures to do this goal may have possessed a devastating impact on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an effort to exhibit the planet precisely how capable these people were of utilizing weapons. They could have got their rejections and failures as being a personal assault on his or her masculinity, and consequently felt driven to show around the globe that they were powerful men indeed”.