I haven't done any scientific testing, but I'm not fussy if either is well done. I theorize the intrusiveness or uncomfortableness of the lights will be more affecting than the color temperature for the average subject. Standard flash is pretty close to daylight coming in a window in terms of color temp, so it shouldn't be less desirable for B&W.

Natural such as from a window is wysiwyg. Of course you will get predictable results from something that intuitive if you know your film's limits.

Hot lights, if you dim the normal lights are wysiwyg, but their energy can bother the subject sometimes. traditional lights can be hot and messing with them can be a burn or fire hazard. LEDs are great but can be dazzling.

If you're using an old camera without x-sync, these are your options. And both can do a good job.

With electronic flash, modeling lights provide some clue as to how things will be lit without blinding or cooking anyone. After using mono-lights with modeling lights, I wouldn't even bother with strobist style use of battery powered flashes.

My options are more dictated by the lens choice. I'm using lots of LF stuff with barrel lenses, which mandates natural or continuous light. Eventually, I may have a packard shutter modified to do x-sync, but for now, I'm doing it the old fashioned way with those lenses. newer LF stuff and MF I use electronic flash where I can. The power and adjustability if appreciated.

If you want someone's skin to look different, have a filter or film for it rather than totally change the lighting setup.