Does real genius exist or is it just obsessive dedication from a young age? I know intelligence lies on a spectrum, and some people are lower and some people are higher, but is there a genius outlier that is way above the mean?

File: 56 KB, 526x417, 1326486574650.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 17:57:03 2012 No.4436030 [Reply] [Original]

Does real genius exist or is it just obsessive dedication from a young age?

I know intelligence lies on a spectrum, and some people are lower and some people are higher, but is there a genius outlier that is way above the mean?

>>	mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk Mon Mar 5 18:02:35 2012 No.4436045 Yes. (Is there more to be said?)

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 18:03:42 2012 No.4436051 not if you're a solipsist

>>	mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk Mon Mar 5 18:04:50 2012 No.4436053 >>4436051 Wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 18:12:47 2012 No.4436079 >>4436053 does not understand the joke

>>	a strong ai Mon Mar 5 18:14:03 2012 No.4436090 Yes, but you don't need one to see a significant difference in ability. IQ tests came about because people saw these trends with any kind of test of ability.

>>	mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk Mon Mar 5 18:15:10 2012 No.4436093 >>4436079 Your "joke" is easy to be deconstructed by application of logic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 18:18:26 2012 No.4436098 >>4436093 how so? by the way i'm not the creator of said joke, i'm just an advocate

>>	mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk Mon Mar 5 18:19:35 2012 No.4436102 >>4436098 You are an advocate of a "joke" that never was a joke. It is your misinterpretation that makes you see a joke where there is none.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 18:23:06 2012 No.4436113

>>4436102
Well I interpreted it as such: Solipsism is a philosophical belief in which only one's own mind is said to exist. Based on the question "does real genius exist?" and the answer "not if you're a solipsist", there is an implication that, being a solipsist, one would belief that one's own mind is the only one that exists, and therefore is the only one that can fit the criterion to answer the question. And since the reply said "no", one can therefore infer that the poster implied that if one believes that only his/her mind is the only one to exist, therefore there is no such thing as genius.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 18:27:30 2012 No.4436120 >>4436113 excuse my poor grammar

>>	mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk Mon Mar 5 18:27:39 2012 No.4436123 >>4436113 The solipsist as creator and only inhabitant of his own world is being the interrior average while simultaneously defining the average outside. Such he is genius and non-genius at the same time.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 18:33:10 2012 No.4436139

>>4436123
According to Solipsism, one is not the "creator" of his/her mind; rather, anything that one sees/hears/feels etc. is one mind's way of accepting the reality of existence. And also, being the ONLY mind in existence, genius therefore cannot not exist, as genius is a relative measurement, and must be genius in comparison to something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 18:34:19 2012 No.4436143 mathgenius is a faggot, no trolling And real genius exists, but determination and hard work can make someone who is just intelligent on the same level.

mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk Mon Mar 5 18:36:34 2012 No.4436147

>>4436139
"Genius" relative to himself does not make sense. "Genius" relative to others in his perception, although it is not real, remains well-defined.

>>4436143
What makes you come to the conclusion that I am homosexual?

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 18:39:59 2012 No.4436152

I would say no, looking at someone at the top of the spectrum like Feymann , and looking at someone slightly above average like me I don't see some incredible divide.

He can talk better then me, process faster, ect; And definitely is a lot more observant then I am but I don't see some great magical divide that makes him super human compared to me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 18:42:23 2012 No.4436163 File: 11 KB, 251x226, laughingwhores.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4436152 >Feynman >a genius The guy was clinically retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:00:30 2012 No.4436234 >>4436163 I know your just a troll but Feynman was obviously top tier intelligence. , regardless of what his IQ says. Real life accomplishments > results of IQ test.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:01:30 2012 No.4436236 >>4436234 accomplishments =/= intelligence Regarding intelligence he was retarded. The fact that he was successful doesn't change his IQ results.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:06:03 2012 No.4436256
File: 21 KB, 736x278, LOL-I-TROLL-YOU006507.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4436236

No one said that being successful changed his IQ, can you comprehend English?

But accomplishments do = intelligence , doing well on an IQ test is an accomplishment so by your own logic accomplishments = intelligence.

But hey keep fail trolling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:08:26 2012 No.4436268 >>4436256 Intelligence is the accomplishment on an IQ test. You were saying that accomplishments in real life are important for intelligence, which is obvious nonsense. And hey, calling me a troll only underlines that you are in fact the troll.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:12:50 2012 No.4436279 >>4436268 so basically, we are declaring that although important, IQ does not imply an amount of success.

>>	mtp !EKFQOBEsKo Mon Mar 5 19:12:50 2012 No.4436280 >>4436163 >>4436234 >>4436236 >>4436268 >>4436256 trolls trolling trolls trolled trolling trolls troll trolls trolled trollercoaster troll trolls

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:12:50 2012 No.4436281

This innate genius talk. My experience is that people who talks about other peoples mental achievements and implying that they are somehow magically born with being good at calculus or whatever are with few exceptions what I would call stupid people.
My theory is that people who don't think in terms of some mental status quo, and rather work hard to learn and evolve get smart. People who think that skills magically appears get stupid by this notion. Anyone agree? Probably some great empirics proving this is wrong.

Of course there are extreme outliers, but I mean I'm sure the "real geniuses" geniusness can partly be given to them being great at something, but mostly to being at the right time/place and probably lot to do with fandom.
>>4436152
I'm just reading "surely you must be joking.." and it feels like that's a big theme in the book, he's kind of describing himself as the Forest Gump of physics.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:14:06 2012 No.4436289
File: 106 KB, 555x455, LOL-I-TROLL-YOU-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4436268

>You were saying that accomplishments in real life are important for intelligence, which is obvious nonsense.

Except for you know for all the peer reviewed studies showing other wise.So either you are trolling here or clinically retarded you choose.

>And hey, calling me a troll only underlines that you are in fact the troll.

God your so retarded , the fact you started calling me a troll by your own logic makes you a troll.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:17:23 2012 No.4436298

>>4436280
Nobdody is trolling ITT, you retard.

>>4436279
IQ does imply success. But success doesn't imply IQ.

>>4436289
Intelligence is per definition your score on an IQ test. You cannot argue against definitions.
You can post that silly picture and your "troll" argument over 900 times. It won't do anything other than undermining your credibility.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:21:54 2012 No.4436310

>>4436298
>IQ does imply success. But success doesn't imply IQ.
IQ correlated with success, but moderately. There are plenty of successful low-IQ people and unsuccessful high-IQ people.

There are highly rewarding pursuits that don't require a high IQ, and plenty of ways to fail even if you have high IQ, especially by thinking that your intelligence will allow you to succeed even if you don't plan reasonably and work hard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:22:54 2012 No.4436312 >>4436298 >Intelligence is per definition your score on an IQ test. Are you even trying? >You cannot argue against definitions. Yes you can ,people who write dictionary's do all the time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:23:10 2012 No.4436317 File: 76 KB, 743x989, 1284786158735.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4436289 You poor fool.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:24:10 2012 No.4436320

>>4436234

>l but Feynman was obviously top tier intelligence

Feynman was great at physics, that's it. It isn't a measure of intelligence, just like being great at Chess isn't a measure of intelligence.

It really, just means he was good at physics, and he also practiced it all day every day in his childhood and teens...

He was failing everything else basically, terrible at history, english, biology, music, art, etc...And it was the same in college, he had a very 1-dimensional mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:24:18 2012 No.4436321 >>4436310 basically this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:24:18 2012 No.4436323 >>4436312 Are you writing a dictionary right now? Even if you did, do you actually believe it will be widely accepted? Yeah, I right. I don't think so. You'll have to deal with the commonly accepted definitions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:24:18 2012 No.4436324 >>4436317 saved

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:27:34 2012 No.4436328

>>4436298
>Intelligence is per definition your score on an IQ test. You cannot argue against definitions.

That is one definition of intelligence, and also a terrible one.

Some idiot savants score very high on IQ tests yet can't hold a conversation, can't figure out how to open doors and function on a basic level...while my Logic professor who can speak 6 languages and has an IQ of 95....which stumps all the psychologists at our University...

so ya, IQ is mostly shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:28:43 2012 No.4436335 >>4436328 Your logic professor cannot have an IQ of 95. If his IQ was that low he wouldn't be capable of speech.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:30:58 2012 No.4436347

>>4436320

>Feynman was great at physics, that's it. It isn't a measure of intelligence, just like being great at Chess isn't a measure of intelligence.

Feynman wasn't just great at physics he was equivalent to a grand master in the chess world. Which dose imply a certain base level of intelligence.

>He was failing everything else basically, terrible at history, english, biology, music, art, etc...And it was the same in college, he had a very 1-dimensional mind.

I would like to see your sources for this.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:31:07 2012 No.4436349

>>4436335

>can't be 95.If his IQ was that low he wouldn't be capable of speech.

>An IQ Score of 95 is Higher Than 36 of the General Population

Ipso facto, 36 % of the general population are incapable of speech.

No. IQ means nothing, and even if it did, you are wrong, 95 is slightly below average (100).

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:33:14 2012 No.4436355 >>4436320 Feynman's IQ was measured at only around 125, but given what else we've seen of his personality, it's likely that he was so distracted by flaws he saw in the test that it interfered with his performance.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:33:22 2012 No.4436356

>>4436347

>I would like to see your sources for this.

Go read his books and watch his videos on youtube, he regularly recalls how terrible he was at everything in school besides math/physics...(wasn't failing but he was getting like C-....just shit grades, he was dumb as fuck)

If you listen to him speak you can tell he's kinda below average....except at physics hes very talented.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:34:22 2012 No.4436357 >>4436349 More than 36% of the population are incapable of speech. Don't you go outside? I mean not your uni, but have you seen the people on the street, the people working in lower jobs, or even those who are not qualified for any job?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:34:31 2012 No.4436359 >>4436357 stop trying.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:35:31 2012 No.4436360

>>4436328

>.while my Logic professor who can speak 6 languages and has an IQ of 95....which stumps all the psychologists at our University...

It may just be the IQ test he's taking focuses very heavily on an area where he lacks intelligence. Unless he's taken multiple IQ tests.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:35:38 2012 No.4436362 >>4436328 Anyone is capable of learning to speak six languages, given the interest and the right opportunities. Language processing is a very basic human ability.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:36:38 2012 No.4436364 >>4436328 This all the way

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:36:38 2012 No.4436365 >>4436359 I'm not "trying". Seriously, do you go outside?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:37:46 2012 No.4436370 >>4436365 36% of people aren't incapable of speech. Maybe like < 1% are.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:37:46 2012 No.4436369

When feynman wanted to learn about the anatomy of a cat he asked his professor,

>“Do you have a map of the cat?”
>“Do you have a map of the cat?”
>map of a cat
>map...

This is what I mean by listening to him speak...if you listen to him speak you'll see that he was kinda dumb lol

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:39:02 2012 No.4436374

>>4436362

Well he's a logic professor, he teaches philosophy, logic and set theory, so his analytic skills are top tier, and his memory and language skills are top tier...yet his IQ tests are shit

how do you explain this?

Also if you look at his CV, he's super successful in everything he does...

http://web.uvic.ca/philosophy/people/kluge/cv/cv.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:39:02 2012 No.4436376 >>4436370 Don't delude yourself into believing this. You talk to people of your intelligence in your family or at school/uni. Try to talk to the "lower" people. Just try it and see what happens.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:41:18 2012 No.4436384 >>4436374 I highly doubt that his IQ tests are shit. He just states a lower result towards his students to indocrinate them with some wrong form of political thinking.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:42:18 2012 No.4436387 >>4436376 I live in Canada, so it doesn't apply. maybe if I moved to America?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:43:34 2012 No.4436393 Most math geniuses are just asspies who were obsessed with numbers since they were two or something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:44:42 2012 No.4436394 >>4436387 I think I have to move to canada then. Here in europe the situation is becoming worse and worse with all the muslims invading.

>>	sage Mon Mar 5 19:45:54 2012 No.4436397 Doesn't America have like half the average IQ of the UK? So when they say an american has an IQ of 100 it is actually 50 in the UK system.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:46:54 2012 No.4436398

>>4436374
>Well he's a logic professor
That doesn't impress me at all.

It's one of those fields with an impressive title that implies great relevance to life, which fails to produce results. There's a reason that courses in logic aren't prerequisites to courses in science and math.

The process of logic is important. The academic subfield "logic" of the academic field "philosophy" is wankery.

A comparable field is psychology. There's not much in the world that's much more important than understanding how people think, but there's no evidence that people who study psychology have a better understanding of how people think than others who just learn from normal experience with people.

Pseudoexpertise is pseudo.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:47:58 2012 No.4436400 >>4436394 Oh god, don't move to Canada. We don't know our fucking asses from a hole in a ground when it comes to innovation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:48:07 2012 No.4436403 File: 137 KB, 560x373, terry_tao.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4436369 Terence Tao has an iq of 210 and yet his writing is pretty average and he talks like a tard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:48:07 2012 No.4436404 >>4436394 You think Canada isn't being swarmed by immigrants?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:51:22 2012 No.4436415 >>4436369 That's not being dumb, that's being direct. He was impatient with unnecessary things, like memorizing hundreds or thousands of words of vocabulary to be able to speak conventionally about a field that's otherwise easy to understand.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:53:38 2012 No.4436419 >mfw the man with the highest IQ is a civil engineer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ung-yong

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:54:47 2012 No.4436424 >>4436376 I'm fucking trying it right now, and I'm starting to agree with you.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:56:02 2012 No.4436429
File: 23 KB, 312x400, yao1-312x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4436398
>There's not much in the world that's much more important than understanding how people think, but there's no evidence that people who study psychology have a better understanding of how people think than others who just learn from normal experience with people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:58:19 2012 No.4436434 File: 49 KB, 424x640, casterryuu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4436429 >I have nothing intelligent to say, in a thread about intelligence.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 19:59:19 2012 No.4436435

>>4436403

He probably is a tard in every other subject and aspect of life except math.

Put him in a board meeting and make him pitch a sale in front of a bunch of millionaire investors, make his salary depend on it, see how well he does.

Put him in a club and ask him to pick up 3 chicks in the next 30minutes, see how well he does.

Put him up against a chess master, see how quickly he gets stomped.

get him to play poker vs some good players, see how quickly he goes broke...

I've seen him lecture, he is on the aspie spectrum...

intelligence is multifaceted, it isn't just IQ and it isn't just math, its much more

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:01:34 2012 No.4436446 >>4436435 Intelligence is IQ. Other abilities are other abilities.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:02:42 2012 No.4436451 >>4436434 Neither did the guy I was quoting

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:03:51 2012 No.4436455

>>4436398

>There's a reason that courses in logic aren't prerequisites to courses in science and math.

At my Uni you can take symbolic logic courses instead of calculus if your a soft-science major (psych, bio, physio, etc)

the 4th year math courses do have logic pre-reqs, set theory pre-reqs, which are taught in the math department, but are products of logicians mainly...

>implies great relevance to life, which fails to produce results.

that's irrelevant, ppl study math just for maths sake, and inevitably results are produced...it just takes longer to find an application, same goes for top tier logic work

work on set theory was pivotal for the development of computers

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:04:58 2012 No.4436458 >>4436446 which IQ test? and why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:07:15 2012 No.4436468 >>4436458 Any reliable IQ test. It's the definition of intelligence.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:08:30 2012 No.4436475

>>4436446
IQ is a mediocre measure of intelligence. There's a good correlation between what we call intelligence and IQ, but there are many reasons it's still possible for a very intelligent person to get a score that isn't very high, and also reasons that a person can get a much higher IQ score than their true intelligence warrants.

Getting a high score on a particular IQ test is a skill that can be trained and improved. If you have certain interests or hobbies, your IQ will be inflated by getting practice at tasks used as IQ tests.

If you want to score high on IQ tests for some reason, you could certainly do a lot of IQ tests for practice, and improve your score that way.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:09:30 2012 No.4436480

>>4436468

what determines reliability and how do we know they are testing "intelligence" and not something else?

How do you define intelligence so you know it is being tested, and not just a derivative of computation or memorization or imagination, etc...

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:09:30 2012 No.4436477 >>4436468 Intelligence is what IQ tests are intended to measure, but it is not defined as the result of a test.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:09:39 2012 No.4436483 >>4436455 >work on set theory was pivotal for the development of computers It really wasn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:10:39 2012 No.4436484 >>4436475 >IQ is a terrible measure of intelligence. fixed that for you.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:10:39 2012 No.4436485

>>4436468

>IQ test
>definition of intelligence

Yeah, nah. IQ tests have some merit in measuring certain types of intelligence, but to imply that IQ tests accurately measure all types of competence is just stupid.

I often wonder why /sci/ is always so defensive of IQ tests until I remember that it's the only real proof that they have that they're better than "normies."

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:10:39 2012 No.4436487 >>4436102 >>4436098 >>4436093 jesus christ what a fucking aspie fest lolol

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:11:46 2012 No.4436488 >>4436483 look up Turing + logic

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:11:46 2012 No.4436492 >>4436475 /thread

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:23:18 2012 No.4436535

>>4436488
The high-falutin theoretical stuff wasn't "pivotal for the development of computers".

Computers started being constructed as soon as workable components for them became available, and it was a fairly straightforward matter.

There's nothing particularly hard about wiring together a computer once you've got the components, although there's practically unlimited work to be done improving the components, the computer you make from them, and the programs you run on it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:26:30 2012 No.4436542 >>4436535 >There's nothing particularly hard about wiring together a computer once you've got the components heh...sure is retard in here

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:30:02 2012 No.4436560 Based on an assumption of normality in the distribution of iq scores. Simple probability dictates an increasing small chance of outliers as distance from the mean increases. You could verify by a z-score transformation of predicted score.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:31:11 2012 No.4436563

>>4436542
I've had some training in electrical engineering. I've designed and implemented programming languages. I've built logic circuits to achieve complex tasks from basic components.

So I can say with confidence that building a computer just isn't that hard, once you have the basic components, although you can throw almost unlimited work into making it more efficient.

Hardware isn't harder than software, and you don't have to look very hard to find computer programmers who aren't rocket scientists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:31:11 2012 No.4436564 >>4436560 >babby's first probability

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:42:23 2012 No.4436604 Why does it seem like many of you have a strong desire to see the world in black and white?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:42:30 2012 No.4436609 >>4436563 >building a computer just isn't that hard > building =/= inventing are you even trying anymore?

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 20:59:22 2012 No.4436653

>>4436609
Inventing the computer might be harder than building one, but it neither required any rigorous analysis of computing, nor was it any great revelation.

Calculating and tabulating machines were hardly new. IBM "was founded in 1911 as the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation through a merger of three companies: the Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, and the Computing Scale Corporation."

They weren't any great leap either, once the clock was invented.

Mechanical computers were then used for their reliability and efficiency at simple tasks, although they lacked the speed to make them attractive for complex calculations.

Electric computers were an obvious idea, once components became available in sufficient quantities, and once their speed was evident, it was obvious that they would be useful for handling complex calculations.

The rewireable electric computer was completely obvious (once you build one for one job, you're going to want to reuse the same components for another job), and the stored-program computer was only a small step from there.

The programmable computer was such an obvious idea that it was invented over a hundred years before it was worth implementing.

There are lots of things in the history of technology that took special ingenuity or profound inspiration to invent. The computer isn't one of them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 21:19:46 2012 No.4436715 We wouldn't have computers without Turing and his work on logic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 21:23:18 2012 No.4436731 Alan Turing is the father of computer science, not of computers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 21:24:26 2012 No.4436737 Alan Turing was the father of computer science, not of computers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 21:28:50 2012 No.4436752 >>4436737 couldn't have computers without Turings work on logic, computation and math, as well as Von Neumman et al

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 5 21:32:23 2012 No.4436761 >>4436752 This is just wrong. In the development of computers, theory got way ahead of practice, but it didn't need to.

Anonymous Mon Mar 5 23:58:51 2012 No.4437191

>>4436030
That's actually a great question OP. I have not and will not read the majority of this thread, but basically what I have to say is this:

We are very biologically similar to our ancestors 2000 or more years prior. Our brain structure is at least 90% dictated by DNA.

It's possible that there have been some people who have genetic mutations or other variations to produce a unique brain structure which allowed them cognitive power far above the normal, however I (personally) think the actual instances of that throughout history are incredibly far and few between. Perhaps da Vinci might have been such an individual. But I think the kind of oblique assumption in your post is probably correct. The majority of those who succeeded likely did so primarily because of their circumstances. I think that's why IQ is ineffective as it is in producing any meaningful predictions, because our actually cognitive abilities differ so little, particularly within a single racial group. Even this would run completely contrary to the belief that us /sci/ducks are so superior to those retarded meatheads who chase pussy all day and write retard statements on facebook, I don't think it is very often that someone is so viscerally more intelligent like the difference between the average human and the average gibbon.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math