Hi Ron, thanks for taking the time to read. You ask good questions.. yes, the interest in deeper meanings, and I think also the complex understanding of how we can be active participants in our own suffering, even at an unconscious level, i.e. that a “symptom” may serve some deeper need. And just generally, I think psychoanalysts aren’t afraid of the deep dark nor powerful relational intimacy. At least – that’s all true in theory! Because the psychoanalytic dyad is so unique (not like any other human relationship) it was really difficult to get perspective on… But I think in my own therapy, there was a big shift halfway through, where it seemed like Dr. Reynolds’ values and goals began to shape the therapy more than my own. I think that is to be avoided! In terms of branches, yes, there are differences but I think it’s also like anything else – each branch has some brilliant minds, and some twisted ones, and beyond that, not everything works for everybody. But yes, I think power issues are very important to watch out for, and some analytic schools to address that. Jody Messler-Davies theories come to mind – I think she writes about the ‘post-Oedipal complex’ in that sense, where the analyst and analysand become equals. The 388 clinic in Montreal, which is Lacanian in orientation, also has a lot of good stuff to say about the analyst as ‘the one who knows’ and the goal of analysis being that the analysand becomes that, in charge of their own life in accordance to their own ethics. Another problematic side is the financial barriers to analysis, and I wonder if some people are seeking such an expensive treatment but really the problem is they just have too much money and power, not even humility or generosity, and is that what’s making them unhappy in the first place?