Emanuel Jauk has come back to me about comments I made on his paper, making some clarifications, and pointing out that although I had uploaded one of his papers he had sent me another relevant paper which I hadn’t uploaded, so here is a link to it, with apologies to Emanuel:
I had said of his presentation:
"The paper is slightly unusual, in that it seeks to model creative processes using IQ120 as a cut-off, and so runs contrary to the general findings of the Lubinski and Benbow work that there is no cut-off point, and that the brighter you are the more creative you are in real life."
Emanuel replies: “The paper you refer to was published in Intelligence 2013 (i sent it to you; it is a different one than the document you uploaded). We observed an IQ-120-cutoff for the relationship between intelligence and divergent thinking ability (referred to as "creative potential" in this manuscript).
I had said:
"The paper [...] runs contrary to the general findings of the Lubinski and Benbow work [... .] I think the difference lies in the fact that [...] their volunteers were assessed on creativity tests, rather than real life achievements."
“We did actually assess real-life achievements, too, and found no cutoff-point. Instead, we observed a linear increase of creative achievement as intelligence increases. Thus, the findings do in no way contradict those from the Lubinski group; they rather support them. In the second paper (EJP 2014; the one you uploaded) deals with creative achievement in more detail and shows that intelligence has additive and interactive effects on it.
“I understand that all the different creativity measures and tests might lead to some confusion, but it is important for me to highlight that if we consider the full complexity of the phenomenon, the big picture seems to be fairly consistent, actually.”
In summary, there appear to be break points if you look at creativity test performance, but not when you look at actual achievements in the real world.