Guys wanting to research everything before getting field experience.

That's one problem that's always been with us.. but as we gained popularity, we also developed another one: Abstraction Astronauts.

When smart people think about problems, they see patterns. Then they look at another problem and see something that's kinda-sorta the same pattern if you look at it sideways and squint a bit, and, happy as an autist in a giant bucket of legos, they create an abstraction that encompasses both and treats them as the same thing.

Then they spot a third thing, and they do it again. And again. And again.

Thing is, if you go too far up Mount Abstraction, you start to run out of oxygen. Sometimes smart thinkers just don’t know when to stop, and they create these absurd, all-encompassing, high-level pictures of the universe that are fine for people who find that sort of thing entertaining, but don’t actually imply anything useful that can be tested.

Because their models have no useful, demonstrable results, and no specific applications that they can show you, they tend to proselytize instead. It's pretty easy to spot when one of these characters is preaching at your doorstep: the incredible amount of bombast; the heroic, utopian grandiloquence; the boastfulness; the complete lack of reality, the sulkiness gradually turning to anger when you fail to show the proper amount of awe or simply don't agree, the insistence that you must just not be smart enough to understand their greatness.

Since these people are solving problems that they think they can solve, not problems which are useful to solve, preaching is the only card they can play.

Any time an organization, corporation, society, or other collective entity becomes large enough, it develops the capability to support a certain amount of people who don't pull their own weight... their primary skill isn't contributing, it's convincing people that they're about to contribute (when they get more investment dollars), or have been contributing invisibly all along, or have major contributions ready to go if only you peasants were smart enough to understand the sheer brilliance of their new platform, and stop caring about the fact that it lacks a killer app.

Over my years in TRP, I've had less and less time and energy to talk about how to get laid, or how to understand women (in order to get laid), because I've had to devote more and more time to teaching young men how to spot these characters and avoid them. I'm writing titles like "Go out and test it", "how to be a skeptical bastard", and "Jordan Petersen is not your friend", instead of "the basics of LTRs", "the guide to shit tests", or "how to gracefully handle last-minute resistance".

 Surely it’s obvious.
 Doesn’t every schoolboy know it?
 Ends are ape-chosen; only the means are man’s.
 Papio’s procurer, bursar to baboons,
 Reason comes running, eager to ratify;
 Comes a catch-fart, with philosophy, truckling to Tyrants;
 Comes, a pimp for Prussia, With Hegel's Patent History;
 Comes with Medicine to administer the Ape-King’s aphrodisiac;
 Comes, Rhyming and with Rhetoric, to write his orations;
 Comes with Calculus to aim his rockets
 Accurately at the orphanage across the ocean;
 Comes, having aimed, with incense to impetrate
 Our Lady devoutly for a direct hit.

The problem is that BP principals have stronger empirical evidence on the shallow level than RP principals

Does it though?

BP principals are designed to sound good, but there is little evidence available. It's what everyone says, but noone does. They are designed to entrap people (men) who listen to the words but specifically avoid looking at the evidence.

It goes further into something almost religious: young men are exhorted to "have faith" in women. That asking for returns or evidence is somehow wrong or perhaps even immoral.

To notice RP principals you really have to have certain level of understanding to start looking for right things

I'm not even sure it's about looking for the right things. It's more about looking for evidence. Looking at people's actions and ignoring their words is a good start.

empirical data is useless without sufficient understanding

I would argue that empirical data should inform the basis of understanding. Data is independent of understanding.

Until then RP is just bro science which has become ideology/religion for some of the guys

Alas yes... but noone wants to fund RP science. The results (female behaviour, female sexuality, divorce rates, court results, etc) are beyond question, but the causes are very hard to ascertain.

One gender is eternally supported and the same gender demonstrably lies about their nature. There will never be scientific studies into this because science needs funding and women control the social narrative.