Skip to content
Sep 29 / Daniel Herrle


“Recently, when throwing ideas around with people, I’ve noticed something. There seems to be a hidden language we use when evaluating ideas.

Neat idea. Brilliant idea. Dumb idea. Bad idea. Strange idea. Cool idea.

There’s something going on here. Each one of these ideas is subtly different in character. Each adjective somehow conveys the quality of the concept in a way we instantly and unconsciously understand.

For instance, a ‘neat’ idea is not the same as a ‘brilliant’ idea. A ‘bad’ idea is not quite the same as a ‘dumb’ idea.

But why?

I started wondering: is there an invisible language of ideas? Could there be an unseen hierarchy hidden in that language? What qualities actually make a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ idea? Could you visualize and plot the most popular words used to describe ideas? Would that unveil the structure? And would doing that be a ‘nice’ idea? Or a ‘terrible’ one?”

I really think this is hilarious… though, now i almost feel uncomfortable assigning any adjectives to how i feel about it after reading it, haha. Still clever, despite this only being a rough draft. Interesting how the typefaces used vary depending on the word. It seems as though the overall perception of the font being used can also be described by the word it is present in.


  1. Daniel Herrle / Oct 1 2012

    Haha, I suppose that doesn’t surprise me. It’s not surprising that sports jargon seems to be present in political spheres, when one considers the media portrayal of the election process. The whole process seems more like college football game day than a democratic leadership selection. Even down to the way the polls and statistics are presented. I wouldn’t be shocked if we started a ‘fantasy congress league’ modeled after the way fantasy football leagues run. Winner gets life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in addition to $25 entrance fee to play!

  2. dan / Sep 30 2012

    read this today and thought of your post above:

  3. dan / Sep 29 2012

    like this post dan! why indeed! nice find. i like that this post comes on the heels of a very brief discussion of semiotics! everything is a sign/everything means… more analysis would be great!

Comments are closed.