Design for our primal nature
Which brain are you designing for? And how can designing for our primal brain take our products to the next level?
Which brain are you designing for?
We’re not logical beings. We might pride ourselves for and differentiate ourselves from other animals by our thinking abilities, but we actually don’t use the “thinking” part of our brain to make the most logical, optimal, or intentional decisions all that often. We’re not Spock.
This probably sounds really familiar if you’ve read “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman or “Switch” by the Heath brothers. If you haven’t and you work on product, definitely pick up one or the other. Here’s also a really short synopsis.
We don’t always make the most rational decisions because most decisions are made by the more intuitive part of our brain: our System 1. Physiologically speaking, System 1 encompasses both the old and mid brain, the parts of our brains that developed much earlier in our evolutionary process. The old brain governs functions like breathing and heartbeat, and the mid brain regulates emotions. System 1 is automatic, very quick to process information, which was great back in the day when we had to identify predator from prey instantaneously and act upon that.
Our System 2, the most recent to develop, is the “logical” brain, the one in charge of the more conscious thought, the cogent reasoning, and the learning of new knowledge. But using this part of the brain is very slow — when it’s a fight or flight decision, we don’t have the time for our new brain to analyze the situation and make a decision. And using the new brain drains a lot of energy — that’s why we feel mental fatigue.
I think it’s important to know these two brains because when we’re designing, we have to cater to both.
Information architecture, logical user flow — that’s all designing for System 2. Too much info, too much reading, or too much to process, and our System 2 shuts down. Essentially, when designing for System 2, it all comes down to does it function and is it easily understood? Designing for System 2 is most definitely important. Afterall, the reason why someone is using your product is because they have a goal to accomplish, so your product should be easy for System 2 to understand, process, and use or why would anyone bother?
But System 1 is just as important, if not more important. It’s System 1 that acts out on instinct, the one that’s making most decisions. In that split second before your System 2 has even processed what’s going on, your System 1 has already made a decision on whether you’ll like this person or not, this food or not, this book or not. If System 1 is making split decisions about most things in your life, then you can guarantee that it’s making the same split decision about your product.
What does this mean for design? It means that we want to design for System 1, because most times they’re the decision makers, way before that decision has reached System 2.
Designing for System 1
System 1 acts based on instinct, gut reaction, and emotions.
Then you factor in the fact that 30% of the brain is composed of neurons devoted to vision (as compared with 8% for touch and 3% for hearing) and how 90% of transmitted information to our brain is visual, then you know that System 1 is making that split decision based upon mostly what we see.
And in that split second, we’re judging looks. Back in the day, the aesthetic systems of the brain evolved to appraise objects for biological significance, like food and suitable mates. Now the same system is engaged when looking at beautiful artworks…and products.
So just off the bat, our System 1 is judging products on their visual appeal. Is your product attractive enough for me to engage further?
Designing for System 1 also means designing for emotions, the functions of the midbrain. But what does designing for emotions even mean? I’d argue that it’s essentially designing for human connection.
In order to build a connection with someone else, you need to be relatable. What’s your story? What do you stand for and value? Who are you and why should I care? Are you funny and am I going to have fun with you? It means letting your personality and who you truly are shine through.
But that also means that you need to have a good understanding of who you are, what you believe in, and the quirks that make you stand out. That’s step one, and that requires quite a bit of self awareness and some soul searching. Then it’s how you’re going to express it, from visuals, language, and interactions — just like how we express ourselves in real life. Both steps are quite challenging, and I think that’s why there’s only been a handful of products that have really done emotional design correctly.
Slack and MailChimp almost immediately come to the forefront of these conversations. They know who they are and they’re not afraid to show it. From their visual design to the words that they choose to the small interactions that they’ve sprinkled here and there — everything’s really authentic to who they are. Their personality, their values, and how they express these all align and are consistent.
If you striped away MailChimp and Slack’s personalities (their humor, colors, emojis, or monkey), what would you be left with? Would we remember these products so vividly? Would they have differentiated themselves from their respective saturated markets?
Designing for emotions accrues over time. Build a great experience, people will also remember it and use it again. Build a bad experience, people will remember it and avoid using it. Build an experience where no emotion is evoked and people will probably not remember to use it the next time around. Most products fall into the last bucket.
Neurologically, this makes sense. The limbic system, which is responsible for our emotional life, is also responsible for the encoding and retrieval of long term memories. Emotionally charged experiences (whether delight or anger) are more memorable and easier to recollect than events and situations where we felt little emotional attachment.
Evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense why emotions and memories are entangled. Back in the day, when we identified fear and anxiety, our intuitive emotions forewarned us, way before conscious thought had occurred (remember, System 2 is much slower at responding). Meanwhile, secure environments, such as our home that’s warm and free of threats, encouraged us to continue risk-averse, adaptive behavior.
And it is still the same limbic system that exists today. Design a great experience, one that people relate to and imprints a strong emotion, and people will remember it for the next time around.
Maslow’s pyramid for product development
Chances are you’ve seen this triangle around.
I won’t go into the specifics of the pyramid (you can read more it here), but essentially it’s a hierarchy of user needs when they’re engaging with a product. The basic needs of functionality, reliability, and usability at the bottom of the triangle must be met before progressing to the top. And as the pink line indicates, most products don’t get to the top.
I’d argue that everything that’s under the pink line mostly pertains to designing for System 2. Does the product function reliably and can I easily use it? Is it logical? Will it not overburden my new brain? I say “mostly” because if a product is designed poorly, then we’ll have negative emotions which will be encoded to our long term memory by System 1.
But everything above the pink line is definitely designing for System 1. Are you attractive enough that I want to get to know you and pleasurable to be around? Are you meaningful to me? That’s all designing for a real human connection.
As our field matures and designing for the bottom of the triangle has become the norm, how will your product differentiate from the rest of the pack? I’d say really learn how to tap into designing for our System 1, our more primal nature.
Sources & Further reading
