Gifted education has a historical debate going on in which the nature of intelligence is defined either as g, or general intelligence vs. multiple intelligences, such as Howard Gardner's; he believes that there are 8/9 different intelligences, and that people possess them in different "amounts". The intelligences are linguistic, mathematical/logical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and he's in the process of considering spiritual intelligence for a 9th.
Sometimes in gifted ed, these multiple intelligences are referred to as talents, and there is a focus on talent development. This is a nice, broad view of giftedness, because it let's people be good at one thing and work to develop it rather than being globally gifted.
This semester, when I finally sat and thought about it, has been a good one for self reflection, although I'm not always sure I like what I see. I would tend to place myself on the conservative side of a definition of giftedness, working with the notion of g and calling giftedness equivalent to high IQ. Although I've never been IQ tested, I myself would fall into this category -- generally good at learning, bright across the school-types of intelligence. When I was in high school, I recognized this about myself, and felt better than people who were good at things, but didn't excel at school the way I did. Not in the sense of "I'm awesome and too good to hang out with you," but more in the sense of, "You don't get me." Which, to be fair, I still think might be true. Globally gifted kids
do think different than other kids, I believe, and in their own way approach the world in a unique way. They have a particular set of social and emotional needs that may vary from other kids (who, of course, have a set of social and emotional needs, too).
Now I'm here, floundering in a sea of indecision about my future, and realizing that despite my schooling and excellent past academic performance, I am qualified to do nothing. I think about the jobs I could do next year, in the fields I want to work in (excluding education, for the time being), and the one that keeps popping into my head is "secretary." Now, there is nothing wrong with being a secretary -- I have the utmost respect for people who run offices and make things work on a day to day basis. Frankly, I wouldn't even mind doing the job for the short-term -- it's useful and you can see the effects of it. That's important to me. It's just that, unless I were the secretary for an organization I truly cared about, like a nonprofit in which I were a founding member, or (this is for you, Sarah and Mom) a church I felt very connected to, then secretary doesn't seem the greatest use for my years and years of education.
So I'm looking back, and thinking about those people I knew in high school who, although perhaps not as good as performing in school, are happy and have a job and a life. As I teeter over a precipice with no prospects ahead of me career-wise, I envy them. I hate to say I'd trade my global intelligence for a particular talent, but at this point, I wish I had a single passion that I could really dedicate my life to. This is the same reason I could never get a Ph. D. I don't like any one thing enough to dedicate that much time to it, which is a shame, because I know I have the capability to pursue higher education.
I wish I had a thing, an interest, a specific talent I could use to make something of myself, because right now, I feel as if my combination of knowledge and skills is pretty useless.