Our Lazy Brain - Understanding Neurodesign

Our Lazy Brain

Research in neuroscience and information theory shows that the brain processes an enormous volume of data, yet only a tiny fraction reaches conscious awareness. The estimated flow of information in the human brain is 10¹² bits per second – one trillion – while our laptops process around 10⁹, or one billion.

To put this into perspective: if you were to count one number per second, reaching one trillion would take 31,700 years. Counting to one billion would take 31 years. What enters our conscious awareness represents only 0.0000001% of overall brain activity.

The brain achieves extraordinary energy efficiency, making it one of the most effective computational systems found in nature. Although it consumes only about 20 watts, its information-processing capacity is immense. Some estimates suggest that its performance can be compared to large AI systems, yet with thousands of times lower energy consumption (according to research in computational neuroscience).

From the perspective of the entire organism, however, the brain is extremely energy-demanding. It consumes approximately 20% of the body's total energy, which is why it constantly seeks ways to conserve energy. To do so, it relies on several mechanisms:

• Energy conservation – the brain prefers what is simple and familiar.
• Automation of behaviour – habits formed through neuroplasticity.
• The reward system – behaviour reinforced by dopamine; many products are designed to provide small, frequent rewards.
• Emotions before logic – decisions are often made emotionally, while rational explanations appear afterwards.

When designing brands or products, it is worth grounding them in these mechanisms.

Simple and familiar: The “Mere exposure effect”

Why do we tend to like what we already know? This phenomenon was described by psychologist Robert Zajonc in 1968. The mere exposure effect suggests that the more frequently we encounter a stimulus, the more we tend to like it, even if it initially felt neutral or was registered only subconsciously.

The brain prefers what it recognises because familiarity signals safety. Familiar stimuli are also easier to process — a phenomenon known as processing fluency — and this ease generates a subtle sense of pleasure. Familiar things also require less cognitive effort, which our brain is naturally inclined to avoid.

Interestingly, only two years after Zajonc formulated this theory, engineer Mamoń in the cult Polish film Rejs (1970) famously remarked: “We only like songs we have already heard.” The observation captures a simple mechanism: affection grows through repetition.

Radio stations have long relied on this principle. Songs are played in sequences such as hit – new song – hit, allowing the unfamiliar piece to benefit from proximity to something already liked. With repetition, the new song gradually becomes a hit itself.

In 2004, further studies examining aesthetic judgement and processing fluency confirmed that stimuli that are easier to process are perceived as more pleasurable.

From the perspective of product design, what supports a product — and, more importantly, what builds its commercial potential — is not radical novelty but rather the evolution of what we already recognise.

Design solutions should grow from forms and shapes that have accompanied humanity for generations and have become evolutionarily encoded in our brains. Think of the apple and the Apple logo.

But please — do not copy.

Automatic behaviour: Designing user habits

This is my favourite aspect of neurodesign. It is not accidental that the brand I founded is called Wise Habit.

There is an abundance of research and publications on habit formation. One widely cited example is Hooked by Nir Eyal, which I would give a moderate recommendation (perhaps because I encountered it long after creating Wise Habit). Personally, I find The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg more compelling, and it is his simplified framework that best illustrates the design potential of habits.

The habit loop consists of three elements: cue (1), routine (2), and reward (3).

One of the examples discussed in the book is Pepsodent toothpaste. Before its introduction, many similar products existed, yet none had managed to create a widespread habit of brushing teeth.

Claude Hopkins, who launched Pepsodent, realised that a trigger — a cue — was needed. The cue became dental plaque. Pepsodent advertisements encouraged consumers to run their tongue across their teeth, allowing them to feel the film on the surface.

This sensory trigger activated the routine — brushing one’s teeth. The reward was simple: clean, beautiful teeth. Before Pepsodent, only 7% of Americans brushed their teeth. The product went on to become the best-selling toothpaste for more than thirty years.

Products and brands built around habits have twice the market potential of those based purely on functional characteristics such as parameters, price, or availability.

Brands constructed around habits or rituals can achieve up to three times higher user loyalty, maintain margins up to 200% higher than purely functional products (although personally I have yet to experience this myself), demonstrate low price sensitivity, and generate extremely strong word-of-mouth recommendation rates.

How should such products be designed?
“Find a simple and obvious cue that triggers the habit. Clearly define the reward.”

It sounds simple, but it requires ingenuity.