^ And I understand that. My issue is with assuming those characteristics are always true all of the time. Generally, in my nearly 50 years of life experience, they're not. Even in manufactured things (not people) that are mass produced on automated assembly lines, tiny variables creep in that create minor differences. You may get 100 units of the same brand/type of a product, and there may very well be a handful of them that aren't 100% like the others (minor issues with paint, or some other aspect). Even in controlled circumstances, there is that margin of difference. When dealing with living things, that margin increases exponentially.
Some generalizations are okay and some are not. If you had a Vulcan and a Ferengi offer to sell you something at half price, which is more likely to be a valid offer? Yes you might be talking to a dishonest Vulcan and an honest Ferengi but the opposite is much more likely. The problem is choosing which generalizations are really based on facts and which are not. Being more cautious when buying from a Ferengi you don't know than a Vulcan you don't know is not prejudice. It's common sense. Continuing to hold the same views when dealing with individuals who have proven they do not fit the standard species mold is prejudice. Generalizations based on behavior rather than on species are much more likely to be valid. If you have seen 10 salesman use the same pitch and it turned out that all 10 were dishonest, it is not prejudice to suspect that the 11th salesman who uses the same pitch may also be dishonest. Let's say that you have an alien who has no curiosity at all. Then to this alien all humans are overly curious, even ones that humans would not consider the curious type. Yes there would be a few humans who really have no curiosity but they are the exception. At some point a valid generalization can turn into prejudice when people automatically assume something without bothering to check and are even hostile to the idea of checking.
^ I thought this was a fact already, most articles mentioned it as such. (I know, never trust articles, but still.) I had no idea who this person was though. But then, I do keep saying that there's more to this than Fuller just being "busy". I'm fairly certain CBS didn't like some of his ideas. I'm now only waiting for the complete turnaround - either a completely new setting for the show OR a more action-based overhaul of Fuller's core ideas.