Gonna start focusing on academic studies that verify RP truths. My job is as an academic research ghostwriter, so I know how to navigate scientific studies. That being said, social science studies aren't that complicated~

Link to PDF The PDF file has copy+pasteable text as well.

EDIT: Welcome /r/thebluepill (http://www.reddit.com/r/TheBluePill/comments/1k3edn/some_fresh_broscience_for_all_you_betas/). To answer your concerns, this is a peer-reviewed journal article co-written by a professor at the University of Oxford and published in Evolutionary Psychology, one of the foremost academic journals in this field. I'm sorry that the only experience you blue pillers have in academia is writing a report for your English Lit 101 class. But literally everything discovered within the last 150 years was published in an academic science journal at some point, including the discovery of DNA and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Your lame shaming tactic of trying to discredit the argument by undermining the source (or author) and calling it "broscience" is NOT going to work when the source is peer-reviewed, published data. You can call it "broscience" while the rest of the academic world & TRP calls it what it really is: science.

(Selected quotes. I'm leaving IN the citations from the text to pre-emptively reinforce the validity of the claims to skeptics or r/thebluepill. Read through it yourself as it's not that long.)

The Dating Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Emerging Science of Human Courtship

Abstract:

In the years following its [The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists (2006)] release, the Community has rapidly garnered mainstream media attention[...]Many of its [PUA community's] most prominent authorities claim to use insights and information gleaned both through first-hand experience as well as empirical research in evolutionary psychology[...]The following review argues that many of these claims are in fact grounded in solid empirical findings from social, physiological and evolutionary psychology.

Introduction:

The primary conceptual domains[...]promulgated to represent the various phases of human courtship include Attraction, building mutual Comfort and Trust, and Seduction[...]However, despite the growing success of this industry, few psychologists and social scientists have taken a critical look as to whether or not the various concepts and teachings promoted by this Community can be substantiated by empirical psychological research.

Community Literature on Human Courtship Strategies:

Introduces background info on The Mystery Method and The Game for readers who are uninitiated.

Markovik situates his teachings within a Darwinian framework, arguing his “science of social dynamics” is firmly grounded in evolutionary psychology research[...] [He] ostensibly draws from Darwinian theory with the declaration, “Nature will unapologetically weed your genes out of existence if you don't take action and learn how to attract women now” [and] highlights the adaptive discrepancy between the modern environment and the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptiveness (Tooby and Cosmides, 1990) noting that, “while unimaginably sophisticated and complicated, [we] are nonetheless an out-of-date model. Put simply, nature has not designed [us] for the world in which [we] live.

Parental Investment Theory and Conflict between the Sexes

Basically, the PUA community aligns with the well known study by Trivers’ (1972) that the "the sex with higher parental investment (i.e., time and energy spent in gestation and rearing offspring) will be choosier with respect to mate selection." Therefore, women are much "choosier" than men when it comes to mating and sex.

Here's the most important part of the paper:

In the absence of a clear understanding of the biological bases of such differences, the courtship process and ensuing relationship dynamics can often appear confusing, frustrating and even debilitating. Such conflicts of interest in men and women’s sexual strategies (Buss and Schmitt, 1993), often coined “the war of the sexes”, can be a significant cause of conflict and ultimately failure to find and maintain a lasting long-term relationship. However, as we will argue, this conflict is not inevitable. The knowledge of our evolved sexual strategies gives us significant capability to improve interactions between the sexes by choosing appropriate actions and deactivating others – ultimately reducing conflict between men and women. In this respect, we argue that when properly and ethically understood, the dating and seduction industry, despite its provocative label and origins outside of academia, is founded on solid empirical research as well as first-hand courtship and relationship experience.

The Three Phases of Human Courtship: Attraction, Comfort and Trust, and Seduction

The paper then goes on to discuss these three parts of sexual strategy. For attraction, the paper discusses whether direct and indirect "openers" have any support in empirical research.

A typical example of [a direct type] of opener might be: Hi, I saw you standing there, thought you looked attractive, and wanted to say hello[...]Research has shown that expressions of social dominance (Sadalla et al.1987), social risk-taking (Wilke, Hutchinson, Todd, and Kruger, 2006), and courageousness (Farthing, 2005; Kelly and Dunbar, 2001) are often attractive to women (as such an approach would clearly seem to demonstrate).

Indirect openers often include apparently random queries such as, Excuse me- a friend and I were debating something. Could I have a female opinion on how a man should treat a lady on a first date?[...]once a conversation is underway, enthusiasts of indirect openers will often casually move into more intentional conversational material specifically designed to display attractive cues [DHVs] to a prospective romantic interest[...]indeed, psychological research has shown that many of these qualities, when well-presented, can often be quite attractive...

This section is very long, but it goes on to list numerous research that supports that women "rate charming social skills, wittiness, and a good sense of humor as among the most desirable". Research has also shown that humor is VERY important and universally appealing. In fact:

Humor has been further argued to be an honest signal of other cognitive abilities, such as intelligence (Howrigan and MacDonald, 2008) and therefore an indicator of higher mate value (Greengross and Miller, 2008; Kaufman, Kozbelt, Bromley, and Miller, 2007)[...]Bale, Morrison, and Caryl (2006) has further shown that “pick up” lines that demonstrate qualities such as helpfulness, generosity, cosmopolitanism and wealth are significantly more attractive than straightforward propositions for sexual activity.

The paper next discusses "pre-selection" (social proof, pre-approval by other females) and how established this is in psychological & evolutionary biology research. [See bottom of page 4].

The phenomenon where females will copy or imitate the preferences of other females for a particular male mate has been documented in a wide variety of species, and is commonly referred to by evolutionary biologists as mate choice copying (Bennett, Lim and Gilbert, 2008; Dugatkin, 1992; Freed-Brown and White, 2009).[...]Place et al. (2010) found an increase in male attractiveness among women who observed mutually interested romantic couples, while Jones, DeBruine, Little, Burriss, and Feinberg (2007) found a similar effect if other women were observed smiling at male faces; a reverse effect was found for unsmiling faces (Jones et al. 2007) or uninterested romantic couples (Place et al., 2007).

For Comfort & Trust:

Lots of research listed in the text...

Indeed, psychological research has shown that many particular moral virtues are not only sexually attractive, but also relationship-stabilizing (see Miller 2007, for a review)[...]From a study of courtship behavior in singles’ bars, Moore (1985) found that incidental touching, prolonged eye contact, swaying the upper body towards a prospective romantic interest while talking, and a number of other tactical devices designed to attract attention were frequently implemented.

For Seduction:

This part isn't as interesting but it basically discusses how all humans inherently seek closeness, intimacy, connection, etc...and then states that the PUA philosophy recognizes this and tailors itself to satisfy this need in females.

TL;DR This is a very recent and current study that seriously takes a look at seduction strategy and whether or not it is anecdotal or backed up by real research/empirical data. Blue pillers can say NAWALT as much as they want, but research bears out what we already know. It's nice to see a Review that organizes lots of this research into one source.