Listen on Apple Podcasts Now ↗

Listen on Spotify Now ↗

Listen and follow! Add your voice, tap ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ to rate the podcast on Spotify or Apple.

Last week I spent three hours perfecting the kerning on a PowerPoint slide that exactly four people would see for exactly twelve seconds. Meanwhile, my friend's six-year-old scribbled a birthday card on a napkin with a broken crayon, and my friend burst into tears of joy. His wobbly letters and smudged dinosaur drawing somehow packed more emotional punch than my pristine presentation ever could. (The slide got one polite nod, while the napkin got framed.)

Sometimes the cracks are exactly where the light gets in.

Turns out there's actual neuroscience behind why imperfect beats perfect — and it's weirder than you'd think.

Your brain gets bored by perfection and energized by anomalies. It's like a pattern-recognition machine that falls asleep when everything makes sense.

When researchers at UC San Diego studied aesthetic preferences, they discovered that "ugly-cute" designs triggered significantly more neural activity than conventionally beautiful ones.

The cognitive dissonance of seeing something both appealing and off-putting forces our brains to work harder, creating stronger memories and deeper emotional connections.

It's like mental exercise. Easy patterns make our neurons lazy, but interesting contradictions wake them up and make them pay attention.

The study found that participants showed measurably different brain responses to aesthetically conflicting designs compared to conventionally attractive ones.

This brain quirk explains one of the most unlikely business success stories of recent years. In 2015, a Hong Kong-Belgian artist named Kasing Lung drew something that shouldn't have worked. Labubu, his mischievous elf creature, had everything focus groups hate: oversized pointed ears, a disconcerting grin full of nine serrated teeth, and an overall "ugly-cute" vibe that made people slightly uncomfortable. The character violated every convention of cute design, yet somehow felt irresistibly authentic.

Fast-forward to 2024. This deliberately imperfect creature generated over $400 million in revenue and sparked a global collecting frenzy. The secret? Lung's outsider perspective — raised between Hong Kong and the Netherlands, trained in European fairy tale illustration but influenced by Chinese folklore — created something that felt authentically weird rather than committee-approved safe. When BLACKPINK's Lisa casually clipped a Labubu to her designer bag, the "imperfect" elf became the must-have fashion accessory, precisely because it didn't look like everything else on the accessory wall.

The ugly-cute design triggered exactly what those UC San Diego researchers discovered — cognitive elaboration in action. Labubu's success wasn't despite its imperfections but because of them. The sharp teeth that made it "unsettling" also made it memorable and conversation-worthy in a sea of generic cute characters.

Labubu isn't the only "ugly" thing that won by losing the beauty contest. Sometimes the imperfection goes beyond aesthetics — sometimes it's about embracing being genuinely, functionally weird.

In 2002, three friends from Boulder with zero shoe industry experience — Scott Seamans, Lyndon "Duke" Hanson, and George Boedecker Jr. — created the world's most controversial footwear.

Crocs violated every fashion commandment. They were plastic, had holes in them, came in screaming colors, and made your feet look like cartoon boats. Tim Gunn called them plastic hooves. Time magazine listed them as one of the "50 Worst Inventions." Industry experts predicted they'd disappear because "no one wants to look ridiculous."

Instead, something magical happened. People discovered they were ridiculously comfortable. Healthcare workers embraced them for 12-hour shifts. Gardeners loved that they could hose them off. Kids couldn't destroy them no matter how hard they tried.

By 2007, Crocs had sold over 100 million pairs and became a $650 million company. Not despite their ugliness, but because of it. The holes that made them "hideous" also made them functional (ventilation and drainage). The plastic that made them "cheap-looking" also made them indestructible and easy to clean.

The beauty of Crocs was that they solved real problems while everyone else was obsessing over looking pretty.

During the 2008 financial crisis, when people prioritized function over fashion, Crocs actually grew while luxury brands struggled. Their "ugly" design was a feature that perfectly matched what people actually needed.

(n.) The mischievous middle finger to grammar, etiquette, or good taste that, against all odds, makes everything pop.

Take Labubu… a snaggle-toothed gremlin that flunks “Cute Character Design 101” yet graduates summa cum laude in memorability.

Clip that rule-breaking elf to a Hermès bag and, voilà, you’ve staged an aesthetic hostage situation where both captor and captive look cooler for the crime.

Meanwhile, corporate design teams keep trying to bottle this anarchy in a focus group — like teaching a cat to curtsy. Solecism refuses to behave on command; that’s the whole point.

Test-drive it: “Grandma’s solecism of pouring champagne into chipped coffee mugs made the wedding toast feel more Gatsby than crystal ever could.”

Most of the time, you'll discover that your perfectly imperfect version is more memorable, more engaging, or more authentically you.