On the trivia-questions angle, I do think developers who've been working with a particular set of technology for a while tend to highly value deep knowledge of the particulars of that technology, and under-estimate the competence of someone who doesn't come from exactly the same background. It's not so much that they feel the detail is important, but that it becomes a heuristic of, if you don't know X and call yourself a Y-programmer, you must be incompetent or faking. Which is a tough call to make with all these permutations of experience people could have, and excludes anyone whose technology/stack experience is even slightly different.

The traditional example is interviews for C coding jobs, where when developers interview, they gravitate towards standards-lawyering type interview questions. That at least has the advantage of being a fairly stable community, though; being a "C coder" has a certain set of cultural assumptions, and it might even be true that if you don't know certain trivia questions, it's a reliable litmus test for whether you're "really" a C specialist.