One problem with “positive” bias is that it works both ways: If you have a positive bias toward Mormons, what you’re saying is that you have a slightly negative bias toward everyone else . . . I have to try just a little harder to prove myself to you, because you know I’m not a Mormon.
Another problem is that you might be somewhat blinded to whatever negatives that group might have. If you have an automatic positive feeling about Mormons, you might tend to excuse their homophobia. Of course in reality ***any ***bias is wrong, both positive and negative: Not all Mormons are good people, and not all Mormons are homophobic. The bottom line is that you have to judge people as individuals.
This is a bit of an extreme and specific example, but what if you were on a jury and the defendant was Mormon? You might be more inclined to think that even though the evidence against him is pretty stacked, none of the Mormons you know would ever commit a crime, so how could this Mormon commit a crime either?
Actually, an overly-high assessment of one’s physical attractiveness is likely to improve one’s confidence - which most people really will consider attractive, at least to a point.
Yes. But if you can acknowledge your biases and try to minimize the effect they have on your interactions with people, you’re doing about the best a human can.
Another positive bias is that “Asians are good at math.” This meme is harmful because Asians who are bad at math get made fun of for being lesser people, or may get asked to help others on homework and have to either explain that they suck at math, or try to help but do a poor job of it and get shit when the tutee receives a poor grade.
Yeah - more precisely, if you systematically err in favor of Mormons. It’s inevitable that you overestimate some people and underestimate others, but your errors should be random, not predictable. Otherwise you’re just doing rationality wrong.