Personality Cafe banner
9K views 68 replies 12 participants last post by  Electra 
#1 ·
I understand that Ne "gathers" abstract ideas and possibilities spontaneously, while Ni "organizes" abstract ideas and possibilities and is therefore more focused and orderly than Ne. But what exactly does it mean to "gather" or "organize" abstract ideas?
What are some examples of how these look like in real life?
 
#2 · (Edited)
I don't know about Ne, but I know this is from DSP, so here's DSP on 'organizing' Ni:

Somebody that's organizing intuition is like, somebody that's working at a business and will figure out 'this is how the burgers work at McDonalds, you got the orders come in, the processes that go out, it gets the vibe of the steps of how the burgers go "oh it goes from A to B to C to D" and it's this whole little process - and then it'll take that pattern and grab onto it, organize it, then look at the Toyota company and say "I see the same pattern" then it'll look at Home Depot and go "I see the same pattern" - so they're walking around with this manufacturing pattern or whatever it is that they're observing and they've kinda distilled it down and they've got it from one place, and they see it another, and see it in another - they're sorta walking around with this pattern and then when they get into trouble, they'll project it onto somebody else and Burger King is like "oh, no, we have a different system" and Ni is like "no, I see the same pattern".

So Ni is walking around with these pre-realized, pre-organized, pre-thought out patterns, and then trying to get stuff to fit into that - and the more Sensory you can fit into the same pattern, the better for Ni, and it doesn't like more patterns - doesn't like Ne - sure as hell doesn't like Sensory.

So it's trying to figure out one thing that works and apply it to as many things as you can.

Another example is figuring out what tricks work on dogs, and going 'oh I can use those on toddlers' or 'I can use those on customers' - so Ni is trying to hone in on this pattern and get it better and better and better and apply it in more and more and more places, until finally it breaks down and they don't realize that (because they're probably an IJ).

It's not really 'organizing', as you might think of the term - it's more like it 'organizes' the information it's going to kick off to your decider/judging functions, which actually 'do' something with the information.

Ni, Si, Se and Ne just perceive - that's it.
So as far as 'organizing', imo, you could almost look at the idea as being a 'filter'.

In that, you can envision Si as doing the same thing, fucktonne of external real-world facts and information out there, but Si 'organizes' it, or, filters it (in some kind of order) and then the deciders do things with the information.

So 'organizing' works on a conceptual level but if people take the term too 'personality theoried' (insofar as what it means currently in the personality world, i.e J), they'll wind up posting in here and trying to say "ORGANIZING IS TE TI FI OR FE U DUM DUM" completely failing to comprehend the concept.
 
#3 · (Edited)
The "Pe gathers, Pi organizes" is some mantra that Turi (in accordance with DaveSuperPowers of course) has been trying to promote, which further adds confusion to what things such as Ne and Ni actually mean. If you're to read Jung, you'd probably come away with the idea that it's Perception in general that gathers, and Judgment in general that organizes, and since he is the source of this terminology I don't get the point of redefining these concepts.
Turi said:
It's not really 'organizing', as you might think of the term - it's more like it 'organizes' the information it's going to kick off to your decider/judging functions, which actually 'do' something with the information.
Maybe next time you talk to DSP you should tell him to change his terminology. If you're going to try to reduce things down to a few words, it helps to actually choose words that convey what you are trying to get across.

But even so, DSP's theory seems to be predicated on the idea that Pi is the opposite of Pe, and thus Pi's definition must follow from being the opposite of Pe, which frankly seems silly, as they are both perceiving functions. He does a similar thing with the judging functions too.
 
#4 ·
The "Pe gathers, Pi organizes" is some mantra that Turi (in accordance with DaveSuperPowers of course) has been trying to promote, which further adds confusion to what things such as Ne and Ni actually mean. If you're to read Jung, you'd probably come away with the idea that it's Perception in general that gathers, and Judgment in general that organizes, and since he is the source of this terminology I don't get the point of redefining these concepts.
Time moves forwards, theories evolve, what's old is refined and/or expanded upon, and the new assumes its position - I don't recall it precisely, but Jung himself said something along the lines of the words of our fathers should be viewed as guidance, though not something to attach ourselves to and strictly adhere to.

Maybe next time you talk to DSP you should tell him to change his terminology. If you're going to try to reduce things down to a few words, it helps to actually choose words that convey what you are trying to get across.

But even so, DSP's theory seems to be predicated on the idea that Pi is the opposite of Pe, and thus Pi's definition must follow from being the opposite of Pe, which frankly seems silly, as they are both perceiving functions. He does a similar thing with the judging functions too.
The definition of 'organize' makes perfect sense, though the people that are corrupted by internet terminology within the realm of personality theory will fight tooth and nail against it, as they are interpreting the word differently.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of 'organize':
arrange systematically; order.
This is the idea that is being conveyed, it is the perfect word to use - and to people who aren't already poisoned, will make a brilliant kind of sense.

Si, and Ni, arrange systematically, the information they are receiving - and pass it off to the decider/judging functions.
It's literally that simple - in and of themselves, Ni and Si don't 'do' anything, they simply perceive - but it's "what" they perceive, which is where the organization aspect comes in.

It is not 'organize' in the sense of, turning all of the tins of soup in your pantry around so they all face forwards, it is not 'organize' in the sense of getting people together for a common cause, and ensuring everyone arrives at the destination at precisely the right time.

It is organizing the information it observes.
Si, with regards to 'what is' and Ni, with regards to 'what isn't'.

It's also true to Jung, read up on Jungs subjective impressions in the introverted sensation descriptor - the Si type is interested, in only what piques their interest - everything else, is essentially non-existent, Si is portrayed as Switzerland in some respects - this is 'organization' of sensory information.
When something piques the Si types interest, and provokes that sensory impression - then that information is being organized, arranged, and allowed through the neutrality filter - in order - the information is organized.

Say the Si type looks at a woman, the order in which the information comes in, will be in order of interest - bright red hat, big fur coat, leather boots - this is Si, organizing sensory data - it's in order of what has piqued ones interest.

Hopefully this helps.
 
#6 · (Edited)
Why do Si types focus on the intensity of their sensory perceptions, @Ocean Helm?

Why do Ni types focus on that causation of their perceptions?

Perhaps a better question would be 'how', because if Si and Ni are not systematically (and automatically) organizing information then how can they do, what they do?

Si types certainly don't experience subjective impressions of everything ever.
Ni types don't perceive each and every abstract concept, pattern and symbol ever.

There is a focus. How can this be, without organization occurring via the preferred form of perceiving?

The introverted perceiving functions act as filters that determine which information will reach the deciding functions (imo).
It's not conscious, just happens.

People too far Si/Ni live in a fortress that protects themselves against new information.

On the opposite end, people too far Se/Ne never close the gate and make any kind of sense of what they already have, constantly craving more more more.
 
#7 ·
@Turi

Systematic - done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
Automatic - done or occurring spontaneously, without conscious thought or intention.

One of the words has more to do with judgment and organization; one of the words has more to do with perception and lack of organization.
People too far Si/Ni live in a fortress that protects themselves against new information.
This description applies more to Jung's Ji types, which I would argue, are the true "opposite" of Pe types. If you like the idea of redefining things, then fine, just don't expect others to want to follow along.
 
#8 · (Edited)
@Turi

Systematic - done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
Automatic - done or occurring spontaneously, without conscious thought or intention.

One of the words has more to do with judgment and organization; one of the words has more to do with perception and lack of organization.

This description applies more to Jung's Ji types, which I would argue, are the true "opposite" of Pe types. If you like the idea of redefining things, then fine, just don't expect others to want to follow along.
I'm struggling to understand why you're having such difficulty comprehending the concept that a perceiving function 'organizes' the information it allows in.

Systematic and automatic are not antonyms - you're attempting to imply some kind of contradiction here when there is none, consider the act of breathing.
It is systematic, according to a fixed plan or system - your respiratory system - and indeed it is also automatic, occurs without conscious thought or intention.

This same concept is what I'm outlining with regards to the fashion the introverted perceiving functions organize information with.


You could picture Ni/Si as Australias old school copper wire internet network, and somebody saying 'no no no, don't worry about upgrading to fiber optics - I'm just fine with only taking in the tiny amount of information that comes through this, and just going over that ad nauseum' - so they wind up with highly refined perspectives, albeit limited due to an aversion for new information.

You could picture Ne/Se as basically any other countries more advanced fiber optic network and somebody saying 'yeah boiz that's it, more more more more more more more gimme all you got, what's better than fiber optics? Y'all got anything that'll get me more information, even faster than this?' - so they wind up with way too much information than they can understand.
 
#9 · (Edited)
Ne is my boss coming up with an idea, me saying "ok, let's do it" and then him going, "No, no, I'm not saying we should go with THIS idea; I'm just musing out loud. We could also do this other idea instead...and this other one or what about this other one...."

Ni is me only half listening because he wants to spend time thoroughly exploring every single idea while I've already chosen the two strongest and most viable concepts out of what he's suggested and am busy distilling their best parts into one really solid hybrid idea.

I'm not a brainstormer. I like to braid multiple things into one but I'm not good at coming up with those raw materials myself. My boss, on the other hand, can do that easily and won't stop unless I put my foot down and say "Let's pick /this/ one."

I realise it may sound like I don't value Ne but I do - I admire it a lot. Within reason, lol.
 
#25 ·
So are you saying Ne and Se are more about generating new ideas and attending to new observable facts respectively, while Ni and Si are more about focusing on a narrower set of ideas and observable facts? For example, Ne would look at a dog and think of all the different things he can possibly do with the dog (abstract subset 1), all the things the dog itself could possibly do (abstract subset 2), and all the possible experiences the dog could have had (abstract subset 3), while Ni would only focus on one or two subsets of those possibilities such as all the possible different things the dog itself could possibly do (abstract subset 2 only)?
And Se would focus on all the different observable features about the dog: the fur (observable subset 1), the size (observable subset 2), the species (observable subset 3), etc., while Si would focus only on a narrower set of observable features, such as the observable features of its fur (observable subset 1 only)?
 
#17 ·
You could attempt to assassinate my character, @Ocean Helm - or, you could be productive and post something on-topic.

I'm not entirely sure where the holdup is - why aren't you able to apply the definition of 'systematic' to the manner in which one perceives, observes or takes in information?
I'm struggling to identify the problem.

Take the concept of selective perception, and apply that to your 'Ne' and you should hopefully begin to understand.
I'm not trying to be 'abstract' or 'intuitive', and I'm not altering definitions, I'm simply applying the same definition/concept of 'systematic' that you have, to the idea of perception.
 
#18 ·
@Turi why am I not "able" to? Did you really just try to turn this into a question of "ability" again? I should probably just cite my previous post which you called a "character assassination". It's rather ironic how the method you use to defend your own ideas against others so often involves an internal character assassination of your own, directed at the person questioning your ideas. I feel like by pointing this stuff out, maybe you'll improve and start making good posts. Maybe I just have too high of hopes with regards to your potential. I'm not sure.

From a Jungian perspective, to answer your question, I would say that the quality of one's perception being systematic is indicative of perception being subservient to judgment, which would be restraining and directing perception in a systematic matter. Read Jung's description of the Extraverted Thinking type, in order to get an example of how this may look, although I believe this can apply to any of the four rational types, perhaps with a partial exception when it comes to the Introverted Feeling type. In your own words, perception "just happens", presumably as a reaction to stimuli. And you can see Jung about writing how the types with dominant perception go wherever "just happening" things take them. Where's the "system" in that?
 
#19 ·
@Ocean Helm - putting all the BS aside - are you implying judgment occurs unconsciously?

That is essentially where this systematic, organized process is occurring, I don't believe it to pertain to judgment as they are rational.

What of primordial images/archetypes?
Archetypes have an organizing influence on images and ideas in the way they present themselves - this is getting at the unconscious organization I am discussing.
 
#20 ·
@Ocean Helm - putting all the BS aside - are you implying judgment occurs unconsciously?
Huh where would you ever get that from? I'm just saying those who prefer a rational function will more often use perception in a systematic way to assist judgment, because their judgment is their focus, and happens to be systematic.
That is essentially where this systematic, organized process is occurring, I don't believe it to pertain to judgment as they are rational.
I see systematic perception is kind of an oxymoron, when you put the idea of judgment's restriction of perception in the judgment domain.
What of primordial images/archetypes?
Archetypes have an organizing influence on images and ideas in the way they present themselves - this is getting at the unconscious organization I am discussing.
From what I read, that is making appeals to human instincts, which then can then influence perception. Jung's archetypes of the collective unconscious seem like the kind of influence they have would be more in an organic freely flowing push-pull sort of way, that is rough and mainly unpredictable, rather than systematic.
 
#22 ·
@Turi narrow in what context? If we're looking at Jung's Ne vs Ni, both are expansive, it's just that while Ne has an object focus, creating external possibilities by shaping the external world, Ni has a subject focus, creating internal possibilities with its mental imagery.
Jung said:
Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself.
Which one is more "narrow" is more a matter of perspective: Ni being more limited and thus "narrow" in its outer exploration, while Ne is more limited and thus "narrow" in its inner exploration.

In some contexts, Sx can be considered the more "narrow" perception, as it is focused on what is, in seeking intensity whether defined by object or subject, rather than what can be (Nx) in an expansive sense. However, even so, S dominance implies a lack of subservience to judgment which means a J > S will have more "narrow" perception (at least in the sense of the perceiving function's output) than an S > J, for example.

The "narrowest" perception will probably be found in T types. Just read how they are described by Jung.
Jung said:
In accordance with his definition [Te], we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas.
Now this is what I would consider narrow use of perception.
 
#23 · (Edited)
@Ocean Helm - now those images the introverted intuitive chases after - what are they, and why are they appearing in the order they do?

I'll tell you. Images, ideas and archetypes mate. Archetypes are the 'why', they are the organizer.

From ya boi:

Archetypes, so far as we can observe and explain them at all, manifest themselves only through their ability to organize images and ideas, and this is always an unconscious process which cannot be detected until afterwards.
This is what I'm talking about.
Something below our level of consciousness is organizing what we perceive.
 
#24 · (Edited)
@Turi what you're describing as "organization" (not sure what translation this comes from, because it's not used in mine) is what is done as an unconscious process in the Jungverse. And these archetypes make up the "collective unconscious", meaning they are shared by people in general, not specific to a particular type. When Jung talks about the "subjective factor" getting priority in introverts, he is talking about the "primordial image" getting special priority.

When I talk about Ji organizing information in a personal way, I am not making things up. Here's Jung in Psychological Types, literally talking about how Ti approaches facts:
Jung said:
For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.
There's your "organizing information" done not by Pi, but rather by Ji.

More from "mah boi", also from Psychological Types, about the Ti type:
Jung said:
The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images.
Ideas, primordial images, look what type is doing what you were attributing to Ni. I don't think "organizing" is the best word, but a process is being done which results in "ideas" being centered around primordial images.

Side note: if you look at how Jung uses the word "ideas", at least in this translation, they are the product of judgment, not any sort of perception. Perception, in contrast, produces images. As Jung describes intuition, "the primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways".

Moving on though, now from "The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales":
Jung said:
This special development in man's idea of spirit rests on the recognition that its invisible presence is a psychic phenomenon, i.e., one's own spirit, and that this consists not only of uprushes of life but of formal products too. Among the first, the most prominent are the images and shadowy presentations that occupy our inner field of vision; among the second, thinking and reason, which organize the world of images.
What is it that's organizing the "world of images"?

From "The Psychological Aspects of the Kore":
Jung said:
Psychic phenomena occasioned by unconscious processes are so rich and so multifarious that I prefer to describe my findings and observations and, where possible, to classify them—that is, to arrange them under certain definite types. That is the method of natural science, and it is applied wherever we have to do with multifarious and still unorganized material.
Whatever Jung said about "organizing" in your quote is clearly incomplete, as he talks about the "products of the unconscious" as being "still unorganized", and how he strives to "arrange" them himself. Jung primarily viewed himself as a Ti type, so this can be connected with the previous quote about thinking organizing the "world of images".
Turi said:
Something below our level of consciousness is organizing what we perceive.
Which obviously isn't "Ni" in Ni types or "Ti" in Ti types, as they are conscious functions. I would argue that it isn't functions at all that do this process in the Jungverse, but I don't know if Jung ever explicitly states this.
 
#26 ·
@Turi what you're describing as "organization" (not sure what translation this comes from, because it's not used in mine) is what is done as an unconscious process in the Jungverse. And these archetypes make up the "collective unconscious", meaning they are shared by people in general, not specific to a particular type. When Jung talks about the "subjective factor" getting priority in introverts, he is talking about the "primordial image" getting special priority.
I am definitely talking about unconscious organization. More than aware they're shared by all people, and yes, it is the 'primordial image' getting special priority that is exactly what I'm talking about.

When I talk about Ji organizing information in a personal way, I am not making things up. Here's Jung in Psychological Types, literally talking about how Ti approaches facts:

There's your "organizing information" done not by Pi, but rather by Ji.
That's all conscious, though - right?
That's not the kind of organization I'm talking about.

More from "mah boi", also from Psychological Types, about the Ti type:

Ideas, primordial images, look what type is doing what you were attributing to Ni. I don't think "organizing" is the best word, but a process is being done which results in "ideas" being centered around primordial images.

Side note: if you look at how Jung uses the word "ideas", at least in this translation, they are the product of judgment, not any sort of perception. Perception, in contrast, produces images. As Jung describes intuition, "the primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways".
Yeah you're seeing this from some J lens for sure - I'm talking about something similar, but unconscious, and in relation to organizing the images intuition receives.
Not an organization of 'ideas' or anything - I'm going before that, to the cause - the 'why', re: the order of images.

Moving on though, now from "The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales":

What is it that's organizing the "world of images"?
This is conscious, though, right?

From "The Psychological Aspects of the Kore":

Whatever Jung said about "organizing" in your quote is clearly incomplete, as he talks about the "products of the unconscious" as being "still unorganized", and how he strives to "arrange" them himself. Jung primarily viewed himself as a Ti type, so this can be connected with the previous quote about thinking organizing the "world of images".
I'm talking about the level before this 'unorganized' content appears in ones mind - why does it appear, in the order it does?
The process that pulls it from the unconscious to the consciousness is organizing the material before we even 'get' it.

I'm not exactly well-read on this shit and you'll undoubtedly know more than I do - I just want to point out you seem to be addressing a different 'checkpoint' if you will than I am.
 
#28 ·
This thread becomes relevant again because apparently Turi is still trying to convince people that DaveSuperFunctions and their Ni/Si "organizing" is "true to Jung", which is obviously not the case.
"Organize" in this fashion shouldn't be interpreted as an 'action' of sorts, that's something the decider/judging functions do and I'm speaking strictly from an Ni/Si perspective of 'organizing' the incoming information - see it as a filter - Se lets a lot of new, observable information in (and actively seeks it out) for example, Si filters a whole lot of it out and only lets in what's piquing the Si types interest the most - this idea is also true to Jung - I understand the term 'organize' puts people off, makes you think J functions - but understand it as more of a 'filter' - something 'organizing' what information is coming in *before* you can possibly consciously organize it ie make sense of it in the traditional sense of the word - perhaps "Filtering" might be a more apt and easily relatable term.
 
#31 ·
I have plenty of examples of how inferior intuition works for me in the case of synthesizing information into a complete insight over a long period of time, but that's about it. I get a gut instinct about something, but then I have to spend a lot of time gathering information from the real world to confirm that instinct. It's very much in reverse.

I'll be reading and / or researching various topics out of sheer curiousity and not even looking for specific answers when certain pieces of information would come together from unrelated sources and merge into a major insight which then results in me making positive changes in my life/lifestyle.

Here's one such example (my instinct started bugging me as early as 1998-99 that there are certain key contradictions in Islam which I ignored for a long, long time): I started randomly reading about Mohammad's life in a book called Mohammad by Barnaby Rogerson. This happened sometime in 2003-2004. In that book I picked up certain new details about Mohammad's life that I didn't know/wasn't taught as a muslim growing up. In 2006 or 07, I picked up another book called Peshawar Nights which is a book about a debate between Shias and Sunnis which led to a new understanding into the Shia/Sunni schism that happened in Islam hundreds of years ago. Over time I picked up non-muslim sources on Islam and learned several things like how the Quran that we know today was compiled by Usman during his Caliphate. Then eventually I learned from another source that Muslim Hadeeth didn't come into existence some 200 odd years after Mohammad's death and another bit of information from somewhere else that certain muslim caliphs gave incentives to people for relating Mohammad's hadeeth (which to me read like people would lie for a reward). Eventually this led me to becoming skeptical which led me to finally questioning Allah's existence and then to atheism and the final insight from all these sources merged into one major revelation that Islam is a lie and Allah doesn't exist. This entire synthesis and over-arching insight took 9 years to develop in my case.
 
#35 ·
Guys, this topic was made about REAL LIFE examples, yet you have made it massive theory fest. I was actually hyped for this thread is i wanted to know how to spot Ne in real life .. than i see 3 pages of theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilentScream
#37 ·
@Turi you can keep on writing 100 pages on "this shit" (apt language to describe it by the way), but if you keep doing mental gymnastics to try to defend your DaveSuperFunctions (I'm assuming that's what they are) as "true to Jung" you aren't going to get very far.

This isn't even addressing what I've stated. There are so many things that really just make your posts a mess to parse.

Is it, or is it not your position, that it is consistent with Jung to say that: introverts dominant in perception shut out the most information? If it is, then if you are to respond to me, you should be making the point that Jungian "introverted irrationals" shut out more information than Jungian "rationals".
 
#39 ·
Is it, or is it not your position, that it is consistent with Jung to say that: introverts dominant in perception shut out the most information?
I cut out all the bullshit, and no, it's not, that's too broad and misleading.

It is only true insofar as it relates to new, externally sourced information, just like Jung alluded to.

Introverted perceivers perceive inwardly, that's where the depth to them is, that's where the information they're oriented towards is and this inner world of perception is by all accounts rich and expansive.

I in no way shape or form, agree that IxxJ types are shut off to their own internal information by way of their introverted perception.

Just my 2c.
 
#52 ·
He definitely does not state anything remotely similar to 'All Se doms can't do market research, FACT'.
Just proves people cherry pick the shit out of everything around here.
 
#60 ·
Anyway.

General Ni mindset:
Search for meaning, significance, patterns, correlations, and interrelationships, even if they cannot be proven or demonstrated.

Problem solving:
Make philosophical observations about the problem. What are the broadest possible implications?

General Ne mindset:
Connect relevant information and project it forward to see the “big picture” and to reveal new, practical options.

Problem solving:
Note plausible extrapolations based upon the data. What new approaches to the problem can be generated?
 
#64 ·
Ni users explaining their own Ni is always like "while everyone else is scratching their heads like fucking buffoons trying to come up with solutions to (the problem), i've already considered every possible solution and the ramifications of following those paths and the consequences of said ramifications and finalized an ideal course of action that will not only solve this problem but every problem heretofore and that will ever arise henceforth for the remainder of mankind"
 
#65 ·
Do you mind if I pick your brain a little?

Here's a problem:

I have a serious Brown Widow infestation in my garage and I've been trying to fight it by a) getting rid of their eggs physically and b) killing as many spiders as I can spot every single time.

I have thought about various solutions:

1. Hiring a pest control guy - but those are expensive and I am on a tight budget
2. Using pesticides myself, but I don't know which ones to get because I have sugar gliders and I don't know if any kind of pesticide would be safe for them since they have very, very small lungs and there's no research online about sugar glider safe pesticides
3. Letting loose a bunch of spider eating predators in the garage and maybe those might do the trick, but I don't know what predators eat that particular kind of spider.

Do you have others that maybe I haven't thought of?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top