I think the general conception of technology by modern people is heavily influenced by recent phenomenon and neglects the position of pre-modern humans. I actually think it was the opposite in many cases. When you look at various ancestral developments, much it would rely on what is tantamount to tradition, successive long term observations, trial and error or even just a lucky guess, all of which are transmitted to others by word of mouth or by the technology itself. The few humans that did survive to old age would have seen many things, pondered much more, and had more opportunity to pass ideas to successive generations. Especially in situations prior to the invention of writing or stable oral traditions, etc. Hence why ancestors are often venerated as being so wise in many traditions - they are living libraries.

This was not always the case, the example off the top of my head being the Central Asian Enlightenment in the 600s to 800s being particularly poignant, where ancients had younger, highly sophisticated professional thinkers who scrutinized philosophy and rationality. Part of this was the effect of paper and writing being particularly prevalent there, meaning younger people had access to a corpus of knowledge far less susceptible to being lost and more accessible to more people - including those younger. Being younger typically comes with greater intellectual capacity of a particular kind. So certainly for a technological development that requires flexible thinking, or even great calculation this would be important. But for any sort of technological innovation that requires a great deal of observation or trial and error, younger people would have a distinct disadvantage prior to widespread literacy.

All of that to say, what technological innovation occurred certainly would have differed due to regional variations in prosperity and cultural sophistication, and the nature of the particular innovation in question.