My point of view, as a technical manager (i.e. I've both asked and been asked these questions).
1) is, for me, a way to know a bit more about the person and see how they talk about something they're interested in. This can actually be a good question if you're interviewing an introverted, technical person who doesn't give much emotion away when talking about his/her job experience. I honestly don't really care if they answer "reading", "tango classes", or "building a nuclear power plant in my garage" - I want to hear them talk as a person, not as a candidate, and get the conversation flowing ("which kinds of books ?", "how did you get into tango?", "where do you get the enriched uranium?"). And maybe you find that you have a common hobby ("I love Terry Pratchett too!"), and that does introduce bias - but as other said, I think it's a good bias.
2) and 3) are typical HR questions. They're meant to understand your personality and your motivations. I'm not a great fan of them (see next point) but I have an answer ready for them because I know they'll be asked - usually, I answer these questions by explaining what motivates me.
Instead of asking 2) and/or 3), I usually ask "what motivates you? what do you like or don't like in a job?". If the candidate has trouble answering, I try to be more specific: "what did you like about your last project (position, whatever)? what made you glad to come in the morning, or what did you try to avoid?" Any answer is valid, from "I liked the challenge of the project", "I got on well with the team", "it was a 5 minute walk from my house" to "too much office politics" or "the open space was too noisy". I just want to understand what the candidate likes and dislikes so that I can see if they're a good fit with the job, the environment and the team.