No TV role models there, in fact TV never figured prominently.

That's very interesting. Something you seem to have escaped is the hold TV has on my generation (grew up in the 70s and 80s). It's a default. It's not just a tool. It's like a friend. Too many of us will sit for hours hoping something good will come on instead of going to find something worthwhile to do. This is something I've fought with even in the last several years - understanding that I actually don't have to watch it, and that if there's nothing very appealing on, I can do something else. I almost changed the previous sentence, but realized it makes my case for me. I didn't say "I never have to watch TV." I said "if there's nothing very appealing on," indicating that if there is, I will (must?) watch it.

My generation, and the ones after it don't even comprehend the concept of no TV. You don't "not like TV." The TV is given. You just don't like some or most of what's on it. You do, however, like, or love some of it. I can understand it better in terms of alcohol. I've never had interest in it, and in fact, have an aversion to it. I wish it were less prevalent. Almost everyone I've ever known drinks, or has had alcohol. I never have, and it's a bit of a life mission of mine to keep it that way. To most, though, I haven't just made a simple decision long ago that I never think about now. I've ruled out something absolutely intrinsic to being a human in the United States - in fact, in the world - and am now some kind of alternate form of human.

I've at once loved and been kind of dismayed, even frightened a little by too many people's reactions to the fact that I don't drink, never have, and never will. It's a kind of horror that wraps their faces. It isn't a playful jab at me, making a joke with a horrified face for laughs - it's clearly an actual emotional response that they can't control. "Not drink!?" It's insane to them. I've never had anyone say "You want a beer?" at any social event who's stuck around to talk to me for more than another sentence or two after I've replied "Oh, no thanks. I don't drink." They can't even relate to me once I drop that bomb, and smilingly back away and find somewhere else to be.

In somewhat similar fashion, the majority of redditors grew up with TV as a cornerstone of life. They won't decide (not en masse) not to watch TV, or its shows via download/streaming sources. They will instead wade through its offerings in order to find which ones they most like. When they find them - Mythbusters is a good fit - they will latch on and call them the best of what's available, and therefore, in the group of "best things." Love, praise, and hyperbole-filled shouts of its greatness will follow. That's my take on it, anyway.

Oh, and I can't even count how many times I've thought of a half dozen other possible explanations for conclusions the Mythbusters have reached at the end of an experiment. I wish they'd let me on the show for a week to hit them with all of my secondary questions, but I realize it probably wouldn't exactly make for "good TV," at least by whatever metric by which that is currently measured.

Edited to add: For my part, while Mythbusters is clearly not exactly how science is gone about, they speak in terms of science, rigor, hypotheses, "results," and comparing experimental data, which gives kids at least something to search for later. They see lab coats and explosions, but also things like predicted trajectories, and slow motion playback against gridded backdrops, and calculations using math to determine things like speed based on frame rate and observed alignments of projectiles and grids. It at least involves the idea of trying to get to the bottom of why something is happening (not just saying some supernatural force did it).

I think it's a lot more good than bad. It gets kids excited about science, and competes well with the inane things kids might watch instead if it didn't have explosions and Adam's excitability. More of these kids are likely to pursue science. When they start heading that direction, and realize it's not all explosions and Vodka taste tests, I think many are going to say "Well, it's still very interesting," and decide that the adult, "real" variety of science is worth exploring anyway. Advertising has taught me that you don't have to explain things exactly. Subliminal information - hints at things - things that just get your product (in our case, science) noticed and talked about draw in alarming numbers of people. At the lowest end, I think it will create a lot of people who don't accept the first version of a story they hear, and that's a lot better than nothing, which is what most of the rest of TV is giving them.