{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020278833967046894, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005069708491761723, 'mean_word_length': 5.810344827586207, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Une hybridation de l'economie et des neurosciences a-t-elle un sens?

Neuroeconomics is a recent extension of behavioral economics which aims at uncovering the brain mechanisms and activities that mediate regular and anomalous behaviour. Gul and Pesendorfer (2005) have launched a critique against the neuroeconomic research program, based on what they argue is the incommensurability of the theoretical constructs employed by each respective discipline. To respond to their argument we envision and illustrate several "directions of instruction" between neuroscience and economics, and provide counter-examples to their critique. This disciplinary cross-talk suggests that neuroeconomics may play a crucial conceptual and methodological role in fostering the unity of behavioral sciences.