How do you call it junk science? From your second link, conclusions section: >Nonetheless, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the tripartite pattern:

How do you call it junk science? From your second link, conclusions section: >Nonetheless, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the tripartite pattern: (1)Although errors, biases, and self-fulfilling prophecies in person perception, are occasionally powerful, on average, they tend to be weak, fragile and fleeting; (2) Perceptions of individuals and groups tend to be at least moderately, and often highly accurate; and (3) Conclusions based on the research on error, bias, and self-fulfilling prophecies routinely overstate their power and pervasiveness, and consistently ignore evidence of accuracy, agreement, and rationality in social perception. Namely point 1, which points out it is valid science. Point 3 is the criticism that it is vastly overstated, and personally I would add it is used as a political tool far more than it should be. But the science isn't junk.