As a 'Nerd' - I'm surprised this isn't a leading contender yet - I always think of the term Bike Shedding
TL;DR: The idea is that people will pay attention to what they understand - the minor details - to the point that they spend months on minor minutia that bears no real importance... while fast tracking major decisions.
Months get spent debating the location, size, color, etc of a "bike shed"... and the layout of the Nuclear Power Plant gets approved in days.
I'm not pointing fingers as I get sucked into those discussions just like everyone else, but the bikeshedding-to-action ratio is fabulously high.
Wikipedia: Law of Triviality
Parkinson's law of triviality is C. Northcote Parkinson's 1957
argument that members of an organisation give disproportionate weight
to trivial issues. He observed that a committee whose job was to
approve the plans for a nuclear power plant spent the majority of its
time on discussions about relatively minor but easy-to-grasp issues,
such as what materials to use for the staff bike-shed, while
neglecting the proposed design of the plant itself, which is far more
important but also a far more difficult and complex task.
The law has been applied to software development and other
activities. The term bike-shedding or the bike-shed effect was
coined as a metaphor to illuminate the law of triviality; it was
popularised in the Berkeley Software Distribution community by the
Danish computer developer Poul-Henning Kamp in the mid-1990s and
has spread from there to the whole software industry.
The term was coined as a metaphor to illuminate Parkinson’s Law of
Triviality. Parkinson observed that a committee whose job is to
approve plans for a nuclear power plant may spend the majority of its
time on relatively unimportant but easy-to-grasp issues, such as what
materials to use for the staff bikeshed, while neglecting the design
of the power plant itself, which is far more important but also far
more difficult to criticize constructively. It was popularized in the
Berkeley Software Distribution community by Poul-Henning Kamp and
has spread from there to the software industry at large.
Parkinson explains that this is because an atomic plant is so vast, so
expensive and so complicated that people cannot grasp it, and rather
than try, they fall back on the assumption that somebody else checked
all the details before it got this far. Richard P. Feynmann gives a
couple of interesting, and very much to the point, examples relating
to Los Alamos in his books.
A bike shed on the other hand. Anyone can build one of those over a
weekend, and still have time to watch the game on TV. So no matter
how well prepared, no matter how reasonable you are with your
proposal, somebody will seize the chance to show that he is doing his
job, that he is paying attention, that he is here.