> But the underlying psychological framework is really a fear of irrelevancy. If you make things too simple my expertise will be less important. I will be less important.
Not necessarily. People generally become experts in technology x because it helps them solve problems they need to solve. For people whose problems are consistently solved by relational databases, a new technology that is simpler but less powerful (whether this is true of graph databases or not is worth debating, of course) is irrelevant to solving their problems, because easier to use is pointless if you're already an expert in the older approach.
When you see professional photographers shrug off point and shoot cameras, it need not be because of malice or "fear of irrelvancy", but because point and shoot cameras are intended for someone else entirely and are worthless to them.
When an expert ignores a new technology that's not relevant to him, sure, that makes sense. But when an expert responds snidely and defensively to a new technology, he apparently doesn't think it's irrelevant.
There's also an aspect that goes beyond a new technology simply being irrelevant or less useful than an an old technology beyond simple ego and fear of irrelevance.
Consider an example from the original post. For the world of computing at large, GUIs are a giant win. But many expert computer users prefer a command line for many or even most tasks, and some even use windowing systems like xmonad or ratpoison that are optimized for command-line use.
Likewise, while word processors have taken over a lot of the market for creating documents, many programmers are much more likely to use text editors -- often ones that trace their heritage back to the 70s like emacs or vim.
There's nothing wrong with these new technologies, but it's perfectly valid for people to not prefer them, right? Some newer, friendlier technologies may be better for people who don't want to go through a learning curve, but may actually be worse for people who have already gone through the learning curve or are willing to do so in the future. Perfectly normal.
Here's the thing, though: when there is a large community of people who are using your technology (whether a CLI, a text editor, a relational database, or a programming language), there are a lot more new, useful tools being built on top of that technology. This means that someone producing a new technology will siphon resources away from a technology that earlier users consider superior for their uses.
Irrespective of being considered irrelevant, having fewer new tools at your disposal actually reduces what you can get done. Which sucks, right?
Not necessarily. People generally become experts in technology x because it helps them solve problems they need to solve. For people whose problems are consistently solved by relational databases, a new technology that is simpler but less powerful (whether this is true of graph databases or not is worth debating, of course) is irrelevant to solving their problems, because easier to use is pointless if you're already an expert in the older approach.
When you see professional photographers shrug off point and shoot cameras, it need not be because of malice or "fear of irrelvancy", but because point and shoot cameras are intended for someone else entirely and are worthless to them.