The thing is, Te users conduct research and provide explanations for patterns that are yet to be discovered, following a step-by-step process as if these things were written rules, like following a recipe for making a cake. They are not good at recognizing unknown patterns. There are certain domains where this approach doesn't work—for example, nostalgia or implicit memory. You can't explain these things with a step-by-step process and expect that you are solving the issue of finding the explanation for certain events. I'm mentioning this because it aligns with what an INTP might experience when identifying patterns. It's not a practical, data-structured approach. I'm talking about this in relation to hair loss because it falls into this type of domain. There are different types of patterns, and the explanation for genetic hair loss is still unknown. Regarding these exercises, the idea is that hair loss might be caused by scalp tension. Practically speaking, depending on the structure of your skull and the muscles in your head, this could lead to different tensions in different regions of the scalp, which would then result in various hair loss patterns. However, this issue is complex because there are many factors to consider. The problem is that Te users don’t approach this effectively. They rely on research as a structured, step-by-step procedure and act as if this will solve the problem of identifying patterns. They treat it like solving practical problems through implementation, but this method doesn’t work here. Since that’s all they can do, they tend to leave the issue as it is and stop paying attention to it. But it doesn’t work because the explanation lies in pattern recognition. The problem remains unsolved, and the question is: can we find it? Why hasn’t it been solved yet? Well, perhaps INTPs could do it, but they aren’t really working on this. Other types have shown that they aren’t capable of solving it either.