Do not get me wrong - I think in general the MythBusters TV series was fantastic for raising awareness of the utility (and fun) science holds. But sometimes they get something so wrong that it upsets me. I have complained about some of these errors before. This time however, the mistake was not with a specific myth as much as with the scientific approach in general.

MythBusters repeatedly refers to the scientific process they are following in their show. In specific, when performing tests they usually point out that they need a larger sample size to ensure a meaningful result, as a single test will hardly yield useful information, as they said: "If it is not repeatable, it is not science". So how is it then, in the episode Unfinished Business where one of the myths they tested whether a computer game simulating a real life skill can improve your real life skill, they fail completely in this regard? Specifically:

1. They did not account for the fact that Adam might be a quick learner and have more natural talent for physical sports than Jamie (which is in fact the case) - hence using Adam for the real life training and Jamie for the video game was actually the wrong way round.
2. They did not account for the fact that there are multiple different type of games out there - not all games transfer skill from the virtual world to the real world equally.
3. They did not account for the fact that Wii is just one way of interacting with a virtual game - not necessarily the best way.

Considering these issues, a better way to test this myth would have been to:

1. Use a much larger sample size of people to eliminate any bias. For instance, using a specific game and a specific method of interaction with the game vs. a real life trainer, use at least 10 people in each camp and take the average.
2. Include other games such as chess, first person shooters, educational games (whose sole intent is usually to be a substitute for a personal trainer) etc.
3. Include other methods of interaction, such as VR (Virtual Reality), joystick etc.

I am pretty sure that as an example, a chess training program can significantly increase your skills much more so than something like golf.

In the end, I think the myth was too general to test. In science one tries to get to the essence of a postulate and test that. This myth is akin to asking to prove that birds fly faster than mammals can run. The question can be answered, but only statistically speaking. And that is only accurate if your sample includes most of all known mammals and birds. So only by considering most computer game genres and methods of interaction with a larger sample size of people, can one draw a statistical average only.