Prejudice is making up your mind about someone based on only superficial investigation.

Nobody really disputes this. Not even 'racist' alt right white nationalists.

If you need to hire an intelligent person, and therefore you refuse to even interview blacks because blacks have on average lower IQs, this is a form of prejudice.

In the modern west even conservatives don't operate with this type fictitious prejudice. In fact I find conservative businesses more willing to hire competent blacks women and gays then other types of business owners because having a 'diverse' staff protects you from criticism and lawsuits. The 'prejudiced' evil white business owner idea comes from a different time period and the history of why white business owners only hired white men is distorted for political purposes. Hollywood, media, and academia has created a boogeyman of the the prejudiced white man that is inaccurate historically and presently.

Here is the definition of racism:

the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

The definition of racism is constantly changing. The definition being used in any given scenario is always the one that paints the 'target' in a negative light and the 'victim' in a positive one. It's a political weapon and nothing more. If you go back before the word 'racism' was invented you see a world with tribes, nations and nation states that were ALL aware of racial characteristics. Everyone knew the different groups of people had different intelligence, traits and dispositions. Everyone knew that culture was downstream from the genetics not the other way around. Today this is flipped by a group of financiers that want world government with a docile, submissive, accepting mass of humans turned into service machines to the elites. If you want to run a slave state you can't have competing nations or any religions that oppose world government.

If you know someone who exhibits behaviors consistent with stereotypes of his race, then to say these behaviors are a result of his race would be racist.

What about the scenario where a scientist has exhibited a birth defect or advantage in a certain haplo group? If said scientist applied just an observation to treatment of public health policy would it be racism?

Another question I have for you. I was basically race blind growing up and through most of adulthood. I was confrontational with anyone that exhibited any signs of 'racism' in their interactions with me or others. In my entire life I only met one or two people that really held an racial observations and neither of those two saw one race as 'inferior' or superior. That being said I'm seeing an enormous number of people in my personal life and online that are becoming racially aware. When I confront these people they all say it's because they observe that they are under attack for their own racial characteristics.

Is it not ok for people to become racially aware when being attacked by others? How are you suppose to defend yourself from racial attack if you act like everyone who attacks you is doing in individually? How do you defend yourself if you're not allowed to call others to you cause? Do people not have the right to preserve themselves collectively? If a race blind 'green' person notices the teal people getting together to trick, subvert and kill them are the green people not entitled to group up and defend themselves?

If you know someone who exhibits behaviors consistent with stereotypes of his race, then to say these behaviors are a result of his race would be racist. But it would not be prejudiced.

In the world of people who believe in 'racism' prejudice is always at play because most people that believe in 'racism' also believe that the racist is 'ignorant' and has not investigated the traits of the person in question enough.