|
You could use the theory to describe a situation that interested you as a game. For instance, have you seen the movie "21"? You could explain blackjack as a game and discuss the dealers' strategy, and why it results in the house winning (not every hand, but over time more money comes in to the house than goes out). Then you could explain a strategy based on card counting, and why it results in card beating the house. And if you needed a section where you went to the library and looked up facts and discussed them, you could discuss the ways that casinos crack down on that sort of thing.
Or you could discuss the history of chess computers. Because chess is such a complicated game, nobody has worked out a complete strategy. But chess computers are getting better all the time.
If they'll let you use human subjects, you could see to what extent people are rational (which means that they choose good strategies that maximize their outcomes). People aren't especially rational. You could demonstrate that by asking people to play a Prisoner's Dilemma game, and then attempt to explain the choices that people actually made. (Other people have already tried that, so that could be pretty straightforward research of the kind that high schools often assign.)
Another thing you could do -- this is leaving game theory behind -- is to discuss a logical paradox and the attempts to solve it using philosophical logic. For example, when Bertrand Russell was asked whether the set of all sets that are not members of themselves is a member of itself, how did he adjust his logical theory? What do you think of his way of dealing with it? Or, how did philosophers using logic to understand language deal with sentences like "The present king of France is bald," given that there is no present king of France, or the sentence "I am false"? (These are all quite old examples. I'm sure you could find something much more contemporary.)
|