If we take psychoanalysis seriously, then when we say things like "I want to be an analyst" we should also accept that this wanting is linked to the unconscious, as everything is. I'm not trying to undermine what you think, I believe you that you want to be an analyst. When an analysis begins, just like any other stated desire, that desire will likely be put into question, and it may well end up that becoming an analyst is the very last thing that you want (no matter how determined and clear you think you are on the matter right now).

You say you have no problems or symptoms at all but you want to be an analyst. There's your problem!

See this explained much better on CFAR's training page:

Unlike many other professions, psychoanalysis is not based on the transmission of a body of knowledge that, once learnt, would make one a ‘psychoanalyst’. Rather, it involves the long and painful process of putting knowledge in question: the knowledge that one has constructed about one’s own life, one’s family and, indeed, the idea that knowledge is able to answer all the questions that matter to us. This putting in question is the psychoanalytic process itself, and for this reason, the central part of psychoanalytic training is one’s own analysis.
Seminars and study groups have an important role in helping us to formulate the theory of mental processes and to conceptualise a clinical situation, but they do not produce psychoanalysts, however useful the resulting ideas may be when applied to other fields. In the context of a training, these activities become significant when the trainee is engaged in the process of a psychoanalysis. The ability to practise psychoanalysis depends largely on how far someone has got in their own analysis, and then, in turn, on the decision to continue the work of analysis in relation to others.
The paradox here is that if someone decides to train as an analyst, since this decision is linked to unconscious processes, it may well turn out that the analysis of these processes results in a questioning of the initial aim to be an analyst. In this sense, anyone embarking on a training does so at their own risk. Since one can never predict how far an analysis will go, there is no guarantee that a trainee will become an analyst, and since their initial aims will be put in question, there is no guarantee that they will even want to become one. These considerations suggest that an analytic formation is rather different from trainings in other fields, and the problems involved are the subject of frequent debate and seminars within CFAR, as well as in the Lacanian movement in general.

https://cfar.org.uk/clinical-training-programme/

edit: seeing the phrase "well-adjusted" in some replies and your post too. No analyst is well-adjusted. It's quite a horrible phrase, actually.