- Jan 17, 2018
If you trace a random sample of articles cited on the wiki's Scientific Blackpill page back to their original sources, you'll find most if not all of them are from peer-reviewed journals and cover studies conducted by experts in their related fields.
The OP of that thread also seems not to have read enough criticism of the blackpill leveled by septum-pierced harpies and doughy nu-males to realize they nitpick the methodologies used in these studies all the time despite their lack of qualifications. "Oh, they looked at speed dating! Stupid inkel, of course looks matter more in speed dating, they don't spend several years in the same space to learn about each others' personalities." "Well, duh, of course a study that used pictures and lists of personality traits would conclude that looks are more important. Personality is magical and can't be quantified or described in words. You'd know that if you stepped out of your basement for once in your life." "You're taking that survey out of context! Don't you know there are a billion reasons why a particular survey would come up with results that don't reflect the whole cohort? Wait, there's a meta-analysis that looked at dozens of other surveys that came up with the same results? No, you made that up."
Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single one of them cite any articles of their own, peer-reviewed or otherwise. "I know a guy" is about as far as they'll go. Arguing with them is pointless.