[michaelfdeberry]

Bias goes both ways and biases effecting social status for Asians are typically positive. For example, if hiring for a Mathematician from three resumes, 1 White, 1 Black, and 1 Asian and being unaware of actual skill, the Asian would likely be considered first. In this case bias helped the Asian get a job that will raise their social status.

There are negative biases towards Asians as well, but they don't have much effect on social status, such as being bad drivers.

There are also positive biases towards Blacks, but the those positive biases don't have much effect on social status. An example would be if basketball team had to be constructed from a pool of available players, again unaware of actual skill, the Black players would likely be picked first.

I think the real point is that bias does have an effect on social status. Depending on what those biases are it could be a positive or negative effect.

[unclebucknasty]

I'm not sure that "positive" is the right word here. Biases seem to be frequently double-edged at a minimum.

The negative consequence is more obvious in your basketball example. Picking blacks for a basketball team simply because they are black is not positive. It is part of a system of thinking, which says that "blacks are good at these things". The corollary is that "blacks are not good at these other things". So, even what you might consider a "positive" bias has a reinforcing effect on the way we classify people and form other biases that are objectively and obviously negative in socially significant ways.

Likewise, classifying Asians as good mathemeticians is part of a system of thinking that says they are less good at other things. All of these preconceived notions have some value attached to them which, collectively, have a direct bearing on social status.

In short, biases tend to have a profound negative side even, or especially, when we are unaware of as much and/or believe they are OK.

[rmc]

> I'm not sure that "positive" is the right word here. Biases seem to be frequently double-edged at a minimum.

I've seen the term "benovolent sexism" used for gender roles that are, in theory, complimentary, but in reality are bad for society. e.g. "women are good with children" is in theory a compliment. But in reality it means men who try to work in child care are viewed suspiciously, and women are expected to give up their careers to look after children (because they are better at it!). Benovolent sexism (and hostile sexism (like "women are too emotional to wield power")) are bad.

Likewise, "benovolent racism" is bad.

[michaelfdeberry]

You are correct positive may not be the best term, but I think we are in agreement otherwise

[unclebucknasty]

>positive may not be the best term, but I think we are in agreement otherwise

I didn't think we were in agreement, which was why I commented.

My point was that bias generally has an overall negative effect, even when some biases appear to be positive (as you asserted). If you agree, but simply think that "positive" is not the best term, then I don't understand your original comment:

>Depending on what those biases are it could be a positive or negative effect.

That seemed to be your point, in summary, and I don't know what term you'd substitute for "positive" that would be qualitatively different, while not completely dismantling your premise.

[michaelfdeberry]

In context of the comment I was initially replying, regarding how Asians are considered a counter example, I think positive is the correct term.

My initial post was strictly to point out the original posters bias towards Asians.

So my point, in context of the original post, is that bias towards Asians give then a higher social standing. Which I do consider a positive when compared to other groups.

Your initial post seemed to be more in general, and I agree that all bias has some negativity to it.

[unclebucknasty]

Understood. Thanks for clarifying.