Designing deliberately terrible solutions can paradoxically make designers better by revealing the problem space more effectively. Traditional design advice often emphasizes speed and efficiency, focusing solely on "good" solutions. However, exploring intentionally bad options provides a crucial contrast, clarifying what truly constitutes a "good" design. This approach helps overcome the "single option trap," where teams optimize minor variations of one idea without a true benchmark for quality. The anchoring effect in psychology suggests that the first piece of information influences subsequent judgments; by anchoring to a terrible solution, designers can better define the boundaries of "acceptable," "good," and "incredible." To implement this, designers can ask systematic questions about how to make an experience unusable, hide value, destroy trust, or make it impossible to find. These low-fidelity exercises help discover actual problem boundaries rather than accepting perceived constraints. This method fuels innovation by encouraging exploration beyond risk aversion, much like scientists conduct numerous failed prototypes. Regularly incorporating this "bad exploration" into the design routine, even for just a few minutes, provides valuable intelligence and illuminates the path to breakthrough thinking. Ultimately, understanding what doesn't work clarifies what does, making "good" design visible by first mapping the "bad."