I've remarked elsewhere that I'm not convinced of the value of discussing specific numeric values for these things, but because I'm a helpful chap here are mine.

• Health insurance: if you're in the US then unless you are extremely poor you should have some health insurance. How fancy a plan depends on your wealth, probably not in a fashion best described by a small number of discrete "triggers". I suggest a plan with deductible roughly equal to 5% of your savings but I am not in the US myself and this may be an insanely bad suggestion; but I think it has the right sort of shape.
• Cryonics: my own estimate of Pr(signing up for cryonics makes a big difference to my lifetime utility) is low enough that I don't think I could justify it at any price in comparison with, e.g., charitable donations. However, I suspect that if I found myself with $20M or so in net worth I might sign up as a luxury.
• 10% donation to favourite cause: I already give a fraction of my income to charitable causes every year (on the order of 10%, but maybe you meant 10% of wealth rather than of income?). If I become much richer, this figure should probably increase. I propose the following extremely rough approximation: if your post-tax income is $X/year then give away about (2+X/$10k) percent of it. Obviously this gives unreasonable results for very large incomes and doesn't depend on assets; it's only a crude estimate.
• Virtual assistant: I haven't looked into how much these cost or what they do. It doesn't currently seem to me as if it's a service I would find very useful at any level of wealth.
• Personal assistant: I don't know how much you'd pay someone to do this. Let's suppose it's $30k/year. I can't see it being worth more than 3% of my income, suggesting that it becomes worth thinking of at about $1M/year. (You can convert that to wealth by assuming some plausible rate of conversion; I use about 3%; so income of $1M/year is comparable to assets of $30M but no income other than what comes from those assets.)
• Car: I didn't have one until about age 35 when I moved out of the small city I'd previously lived in into a nearby village. Which is to say, the value of having a car depends hugely on circumstances. I am not at all interested in fancy cars myself, and don't anticipate spending much on cars even if I become very rich.
• House cleaner: starts being plausible at approximately "$100k/year and really busy". Depends a lot on family circumstances (e.g., two parents working full-time with two children versus childless couple one of whom doesn't have a paid job).
• Masseuse: if this means "employing your own masseuse" then it's somewhere north of the figure for a PA above. If it means "getting a massage from time to time" then I don't see that there's any threshold here: you'll do it more often if you enjoy massage more and if you're richer. For me it isn't something that particularly interests me and I have never paid anyone to give me a massage.
• Quitting your job: varies a lot with how expensive your tastes are, where you live, how much you enjoy your job, etc. I expect to stop working full time when my reasonably-liquid assets reach somewhere around $2.5M. I may well continue to do much-more-part-time paid work after I stop working full time. I may decide to stop earlier or later depending on all kinds of factors that I'm sure you can think of.
• Driver: Comparable to PA, above. I drive rather little, don't mind driving, and would not take a job that required a very long commute, so I think the chance that I'd ever want to employ a driver is very low. I take taxis sometimes, though.
• Boat: Not interested at all.
• Airplane: Not interested at all.
• House: Already have a nice one. General strategy to date has been: buy rather than rent; get whatever I can with a mortgage no more than about 3x salary and preferably more like 2x; trade up when mortgage fully paid off until we have a house that meets all our reasonable needs. We now have such a house and have no intention to move again in the near future.
• Personal clinician: Comparable to PA, above. (More expensive but maybe also more valuable.) If I were in the market for such services, I would first of all investigate whether it's possible to have a doctor "on call" -- still working for others in the usual way, but paid a retainer to be available for consultations at short notice any time I want them. This seems like it might bring almost all the same benefits at much lower cost. Obviously this one depends a lot on health and level of paranoia.
• Lawyer: I can't see why I'd want to employ one myself at any plausible level of wealth.
• Bodyguard: See lawyer, above. But obviously particular circumstances might change this -- e.g., if I got very rich in a controversial and publicly visible way. (I do not anticipate doing so.)

For a lot of these, my actual answer is "Not interested until I have more money than I ever expect to have, not only because I don't see how I'd get it but because if I did then I would regard it as indecent not to give most of it away".

Other trigger points should be when to self-insure. The usual guidance is when you could easily pay the replacement costs. Insurance is always a low odds bet. The only economic reason for it is when losing the bet would devastate you financially.

• electronics insurance (self insure only)
• cryonics insurance (self insure only)
• travel insurance (self insure only)
• renters insurance (self-insure as soon as you have enough savings to easily cover your essentials)
• car insurance (I don't think you can legally self insure all of it)
• house insurance (self insure if rich and no mortgage)
• health insurance (self insure if super rich)

You know, people keep suggesting that housecleaning is something that's cheap to outsource, but when I look at cleaning services, they always seem quite expensive. Several hundred a month if you want it done regularly. I normally clean my apartment once a week.

I'm not sure if this is just my area or what. [Edit: It also seems ridiculously hard to get an actual price off of any cleaning service's website, even a ballpark figure, which is annoying as hell.]

You can self-teach. I guess it depends on your confidence with knives, but watch videos of how to do knife work, and don't go totally overboard trying to chop as fast as a professional chef, as fingers are valuable. Do the motion the way they do it, but slowly enough to be sure you will not hurt yourself. As you gain practice, you may feel comfortable naturally speeding up.

As for cooking and baking. Look up recipe on the internet. Do exactly what the recipe says. Do you not know what a step means or how to do it? Google it, watch videos, try to follow the directions as precisely as possible, and see if the result is any good. If the recipe is good and you follow the directions, you'll get something good. Cooking, especially baking, is like science, just follow the directions, and you can get close to the desired outcome.

If you're kind of a natural you can learn to spot problems with recipes before you make them, or improvise your own flavors and make them better, if you're not, that's ok. There are a lot of techniques you can learn but dipping your toes into cooking is not that hard, and a non professional can make excellent meals, it just takes more time. If you find a big passion for it then there's a whole world of resources about how to do things out there :)

Upgrading barely-satisfactory household goods to better versions. Many such goods are bequeathed or obtained when the user can't afford better, and never replaced once they're in a position to do so.

Example #1: laundry apparatus. When I was younger and poorer I bought the cheapest laundry basket and airer I could get. They weren't very good, but I laboured with them for over a decade because they were satisfactory. A replacement set in my 30s cost me less than I would even notice spending, and vastly improved my laundry workflow and throughput.

Example #2: kitchen knives. It's alarming to me how many people think a bread knife and one other miscellaneous sharp knife constitutes a fully-equipped kitchen. If you spend any appreciable amount of time preparing food, and you only own one straight-edged kitchen knife you don't know the name of, you're almost certainly making life harder for yourself. Buy an inexpensive 5-piece block set and experiment with each type of knife on different foodstuffs.

P(Aliens in observable universe): 74.3 + 32.7 (60, 90, 99) [n = 1496] P(Aliens in Milky Way): 44.9 + 38.2 (5, 40, 85) [n = 1482]

There are (very probably around) 1.7x10^11 galaxies in the observable universe. So I don't understand how can P(Aliens in Milky Way) be so closed to P(Aliens in observable universe)? If P(Aliens in an average galaxy) = 0.0000000001, P(Aliens in observable universe) should be around 1-(1-0.0000000001)^(1.7x10^11)=0.9999999586. I know there are other factors that influence these numbers, but still, even if there's a only a very slight chance for P(Aliens in Milky Way), then P(Aliens in observable universe) should be almost certain. There are possible rational justifications for the results of this survey, but I think (0.95) most people were victim of a cognitive bias. Scope insensitivity maybe? because 1.7*10^11 galaxies is too big to imagine. What do you think?

Tendency to cooperate on the prisoner's dilemma was most highly correlated with items in the general leftist political cluster.

I wonder how many people cooperated only (or in part) because they knew the results would be correlated with their (political) views, and they wanted their "tribe"/community/group/etc. to look good. Maybe next year we could say that this result won't be compared to the other? So if less people cooperate, then it will indicate that maybe some people cooperate for their 'group' to look good. But if these people know that I/we want to compare the results we this year in order to verify this hypothesis, they will continue to cooperate. To avoid most of these, we should compare only the people that will have filled the survey for the first time next year. What do you think?

I ended up deleting 40 answers that suggested there were less than ten million or more than eight billion Europeans, on the grounds that people probably weren't really that far off so it was probably some kind of data entry error, and correcting everyone who entered a reasonable answer in individuals to answer in millions as the question asked.

I think you shouldn't have corrected anything. When I assign a probability to the correctness of my answer, I included a percentage for having misread the question or made a data entry error.

This year's results suggest that was no fluke and that we haven't even learned to overcome the one bias that we can measure super-well and which is most easily trained away. Disappointment!

Would some people be interested in answering 10 such questions and give their confidence about their answer every month? That would provide better statistics and a way to see if we're improving.

Humans aren't superintelligent, and are still able to design macroscale technology that can wipe out biospheres and that can be deployed and propagated with less intelligence than it took to design. I'm not taking the bet that you can't shrink down the scale of the technology and the amount of intelligence needed to deploy it while keeping around the at least human level designer. That sounds too much like the "I can't think of a way to do this right now, so it's obviously impossible" play.

I don't have solid numbers myself, but percentile of test-takers should underestimate percentile of population. However, there is regression to the mean to take into account, as well as that many people take the SAT multiple times and report the most favorable score, both of which suggest that score on test should overestimate IQ, and I'm fudging it by treating those two as if they cancel out.

The large majority of LessWrongers in the USA have however also provided their SAT scores, and those are also very high values (from what little I know of SATs)...

The reported SAT numbers are very high, but the reported IQ scores are extremely high. The mean reported SAT score, if received on the modern 1600 test, corresponds to an IQ in the upper 120s, not the upper 130s. The mean reported SAT2400 score was 2207, which corresponds to 99th but not 99.5th percentile. 99th percentile is an IQ of 135, which suggests that the self-reports may not be that off compared to the SAT self-reports.

taken.