Social-Cognitive perspective

The Social-Cognitive perspective is factual. It even makes the point of trying to focus on consistently measurable objective behaviors as opposed to Freud's subjective perspective being primarily based off of observation - without quantification. I also appreciate how the social-cognitive perspective pays attention to the environment as a part of the personality; It  values the internalization of one's environment and how they externalize it. I think the criticism of social-cognitive perspective is baseless, it claims that the perspective focuses too closely on a situation and not the traits of a person, but the description of the perspective clearly points out how important one's personality/traits are in regards to responding to a situation.

BPS aspects, why people mimic desirable fictional characters.

Bio/Psycho/Social aspects of human behaviors

In the world of entertainment, video games have become a colossal industry; Arguably eclipsing the film industry. One of the largest factors in this rise in the popularity of video games is realism. Wether it be graphics, level design, in-game physics, modern videogames are, in many aspects, alternate realities. One key piece of these games that has come a very long way, is character design. In most modern games, characters have become radically more realistic in many ways, such as motion capturing for character movement, professional voice actors, and visual graphics improvements from years prior.
  Much like characters portrayed on TV shows, video game characters often have a desirable, strong set of traits and personalities. They often have voiced opinions, a strong drive, and are typically very capable. Because of this, it's not uncommon for people (both young and old) to mirror the traits of their favorite characters. This is very common in children.
 Why people do this has no singular answer, and is because of various biological, social, and psychological influences.
 For social reasons, a person may mirror the traits of a (non)fictional character not only because of their admiration towards said character, but in hopes that they may gain the same success and status as the character.
 From the psychological viewpoint, someone could don selected traits from a character because they look up to them in a way, sense that they lack said traits, and attempt to better themselves in their image. This isn't always a conscious drive, it may be done subconsciously as well.
 The biological viewpoint is a little less relevant alongside the previous two, and the only obvious connection that I can make is regarding physical traits. While someone may mimic the personality traits of a character, they may also attempt to replicate their physical characteristics as well; Such as wanting to learn archery, copying hair styles, attempting martial arts, ect. This isn't always a bad thing, as it can serve as an incentive for someone to better themselves, or possibly find a new hobby.

Personal reaction to the "Contemporary Research on Personality"

This section on personality and how it is/has been studied was fairly objective and mostly agreeable; The methods described had their strengths and weaknesses, and the textbook addressed them both. Similar to what was written in the book, I believe that while tests created to gauge and evaluate a person's personality and/or traits can be used to gain a rough insight into said person, they are not always valid and are vulnerable to spoofing by the test taker. This section was pretty brief and objective, so I don't have much else to say.

Response to the Humanist perspective.

After reading extensively  about the theories and workings of the older psychodynamic and behavioral perspectives, gaining insight into the modern humanist perspective was refreshing to say the least. The overall theme of "Learning to love yourself before you can love others" is a proper subjective viewpoint, given the vast complexity of humans. I think the perspective as a whole is much more agreeable and relatable than the objective overtones of the psychodynamic and behavioral perspectives of times past. It brings together a potent and honest mixture of previous perspectives and gives them a more, well, "human" outlook; regarding a persons needs and desires rather than their perceived subconscious drives.

Personal reactions to the Psychoanalytical perspective

All in all, Freud's unique outlook on personality is quite believable; mainly his theories regarding the role of the unconscious mind in personality development. However, parts of his theory are far fetched to say the least. His psychosexual development theory has been largely debunked in this day and age, and rightfully so; The original theory itself seemed oddly inapplicable to most humans, I truly wonder how he managed to forge such an idea.
  As for the visual personality assessments, I think they should be used more as a reinforcement to an existing evaluation (if they were to be used at all) than a standalone evaluation. Considering their reliability.

The Evolutionary perspective of "Nature versus Nurture"

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-mtosOOVMIqBe1jyb9OtKn1ouUyZvwZO9TBnzN7RhQA/edit#slide=id.g1cb67e126_06

Our groups slideshow focuses on the perspective of evolution in relation to the nature and nurture of David Buss's study, "Women who want it all".

Andrea Yates treatment recommendations

In the case of Andrea Yates, it's difficult to say what would have been the optimal form of treatment for her. There were a lot of different influences at play during her life, many of which may not even be documented. With the given information about her, one could conclude that her lifestyle could have been greatly changed if the social aspect of her particular psychology were addressed first and foremost. Given her religious affiliation and encounters with Michael Woroniecki, it's likely that the influences of religion weighed heavily enough on her to alter her personality on a psychological level, and in turn, biologically. With only the given information on Andrea to reach a conclusion on optimal treatment options, it's hard to judge when in her life would have been the most beneficial. Earlier would be better, but it's possible she was perfectly stable until a certain point. It seems that in the early stages of her downward spiral she seemed open enough to want to get better, but upon returning to her normal life, quickly relapsed. Given this assumption, if she had simply stayed actively  involved in her treatment process, it's likely that she could have taken a much different path; And that's the biggest error in her original treatment run, there was seemingly no follow-up, and no enforcement. Persistence aside, Andrea should not have been allowed to continue having children, for the possibility of her acute depression being onset by her pregnancy. The other action that should have been taken is a semi-radical relocation, to somewhere with proper living conditions and less religious overtones. Of course, it's also possible that Andreas first mistake was marrying Dusty, as it seems the majority of her problems arose after  marrying him. 
In the end, I think the biggest fault in andreas treatment was the lack of conviction on multiple parts, namely hers, to want to improve her condition.