OK had an appt on Mon with someone. It's now Tues night.

Didn't work. He's very much like a stereotype of a therapist old-school style. Distant, aloof, a bit authority-like but not demeaning--stuffy, maybe? Not warm and fuzzy like I kind of need. Very intellectual and analytical, which I like, but not up to par that way, I think. He seems to, too. At the end I asked him what he thought about working with me. He said "it'll be a challenge." VETO! I asked why and he said because of my intellectual abilities and far-ranging knowledge and whatever else he tried to say about it. What I got out of it is him saying/thinking: I'm not sure I can keep up with you. VETO! with more specific info. I can't see a T who has those thoughts going on inside him from the first time he meets me. I'd always doubt him knowing he's doubting himself. He also is not schooled in or practices with a behavioral bent--I've written about the divide among T's about my need for this. Like I say, very old school; not dynamic--no pun intended.

Most important in a fit everyone (my T's and studies) say is the personal connection between T and patient, with therapeutic style less important. NYC T says what's most important for me is that I find someone who's smart enough for me. Which both he and my local T (working on her PhD in psych at big public uni here) are. The T on Mon. has a traditional PhD in psych from a traditional uni (30+ years ago), so I wouldn't have thought the intellectual inclination--and me giving praise to my NYC for being so, so smart--would be off-putting to him (and he's kinda intellectual). But NYC T has an impressive professional pedigree (MA from Ivy League school A, PhD in non-psych from Ivy League school B, PhD in psych from a top 5 psych dept. uni, on faculty at Ivy League school C [one of my issues is that depression drove me out of working on a PhD at Ivy league school C, so I have fascination with NYC T for getting through all those degrees and schools and a hang-up about not finishing myself, hence a fixation on, and being impressed by, those who did]). It's not like Mon PhD's background is chopped liver. A PhD in clinical psych at a traditional uni is a PhD in clinical psych, schools are just ranked at diff. levels. It's not like he did a lesser degree or lesser work. But whatever, that comment of his seals it, though the lack of fit really is enough to nix the idea.

I see someone Wed. aft. Late 50's. PhD in clinical psych from 30 years ago from a traditional uni. More varied approaches used, more behavioral. Local T really likes his background.

The first guy from last week is looking better.

sorry for typos, need to get to bed.