Yes, simple answer. Longer answer would be: it depends in how you see inventions impacting your life.
If you are a person rooted in tradition and with limited exposure to the benefits of change, pretty much everything invented after you become a young adult would look suspicious (or ‘bad tech”). On the contrary if you have grown up in an environment oppressed by a an old establishment, and have enjoyed personally or through family the benefits of change, you would have a natural I’ll give it a go attitude, (“good tech” bias).
These filters are deeply nested in your decision making for the everyday, and unconsciously you determine a path for something new to start as “good enough”, or “need to prove me is good” like.
I would say just by probabilities you are in the “need to prove me is good” camp. Majority of us would be, even if we don’t believe that in the surface. It’s actually an evolutionary thing. If you we’re naive enough to believe everything new is good enough you probably would not have survived 9/10 of natural wilderness encounters.
Risk assessment in adopting innovation is automatic in the majority of people, you go and do it first, and if it works I’ll follow! Only a few crazy enough, or foolish enough to start from the other extreme can see in an action a possible change. The majority of them perish in the effort. The rest are the ones that fill 99% of the pages in history books, the other 1% is for periods of stillness and oppression, just worth being mentioned as they provide contrast to the overall story, which is really about the shake up bit. The fool turned hero by making it happen.
How do you see change? Are you foolish enough?
A link to a well known good fool…