I generally dislike generalizations. ; ) Seriously though, I believe maybe sometimes it's not a matter of prejudice necessarily but over-simplification. It is easier for some to measure everything/everyone with the same yardstick instead of taking the time to analyze each case or individual.

Generalizations typically are a form of bias, not necessarily Prejudice. Furthermore, saying that ALL generalizations are a form of prejudice is a generalization itself.

No, I do not think it is a form of prejudice. It is taking something specific and applying it across the board. More often than not, generalizations are based on insufficient evidence.

They can be a form of prejudice -- but only at the point at which you stop realizing they are generalizations subject to exceptions. We all categorize both the things and the people we encounter. Those may be, and often are, useful as long as you understand they are not commandments but generalizations.

Not prejudice but polarization by dualistic thinkers reducing everything to either/or right/wrong good/evil answers , a method in which a form of social pschological warfare is first began placing us against them, you against me it's a form of manipulation and deceptiveness in presentation and outcome and the stronger the polarization the greater the likelyhood of violence or wars .. ~Nemo~

Generally, yes. Generalizations based on gender, race, ethnicity, body type and other characteristics over which we have little or no control are nearly always prejudicial. (That doesn't mean "harmfully prejudicial", by the way, but it is a prejudice nonetheless. For example, I had lunch today with a friend who opined that "gay people tend to be good dressers and take care of their appearance".) Generalizations based on a person's chosen characteristics have a better chance of being borne out, such as political affiliation, religion, job, etc. Those are cases where a person has made a choice, whether conscious or not, to align him or herself with "an idea" or set of ideas, where you might predict things with somewhat more confidence. But that also depends on the generalization. For example, "All Republicans are right-wing fundamentalist Christian wingnuts with low IQs and a deathwish for their kids to fight in foreign wars" is no less prejudicial (and harmful) than "All Democrats are welfare-loving no-account over-educated Communist sympathizers who have no morals or principles -- or idea of what those even are." However, you might generalize with more confidence -- and less heat -- that "Republicans tend to favor smaller and less intrusive government" and "Democrats seem to favor an active and powerful government, as long as it doesn't try to regulate their personal lives", for example.