I just meant I'm not a big fan of diagnoses, so I didn't feel like you were hijacking the thread or going off topic. It's why I posted the link in the first place. My T had a fairly eclectic approach, but definitely had a psychodynamic approach. Frankly, I think he used anything that worked with any particular patient. But he never saw clients as a diagnosis. He would just be with a client and let it unfold and deal with whatever came up. So with people like me who had an insecure attachment and all the fallout of long term childhood trauma, he knew to dig deep and deal with the developmental issues.
Personally, I've always thought of diagnoses as something to keep the insurance company happy. We are not a bundle of symptoms, we're a person. I very much agree with you that from a research/investigation standpoint, you do need categories and classifications, but as always real life is messier than the templates we lay over it.
So yeah, I meant a choir of one.
If what I said in any way felt like a criticism, that was totally not my intention. AG