There definitely is something psychological as well as practical.<p>First, it is an issue of social dynamics. Very intelligent people frequently develop means by which they congregate without the less intelligent. Elite academic institutions facilitate this. The corporate world does not. As far as I can tell, lisp was the anti-blub when there was only blub, which allowed people to distinguish themselves from their peers -- a bit like going to Mensa meetings. This need seems to be less pronounced in the younger generation since there are other distinguishing languages in fairly common use.<p>Second, there is current research in neurobiology that indicates that the evolution of the brain (perhaps responding to its environment) has a naturally recursive structure and there is a growing field in the study of religion and philosophy that indicates that the growth of many systems has a fractal structure. In fact, Mandelbrot commented on this himself in response to Lovejoy's Great Chain of Being, although he never applied it to the correlative systems of the East, nor the syncretist projects of the Renaissance. These are frequently associated with genius for good reason. I suspect Lisp is popular because of how it "clicks" with something mentally.<p>Third, it is not quite clear how any of this relates back to programming as a craft. Philosophers can create their own discrete systems. Mathematicians, even if they don't deal well with other people, are, at least ostensibly, dealing with reality. Lispers, on the other hand, frequently must deal with real products for real people. Realistically this means that products must have significant scope, which almost invariably means more than one person working on them (actually products are rarely brilliant, though inventions may be). Which is to say, the "inventive" aspect, which may be contained and individual, is likely distinct from the practical aspect, which is collective. Obviously certain features (e.g. static typing, immediate comprehensibility when viewing method/class names, etc.) would seem to be preferable for large collaborative projects.<p>In conclusion, although it is said "real artists ship," it is often the case (e.g. Van Gogh, Schopenhauer) that real artists languish unacknowledged, their brilliance unappreciated in their own time. Art, when pursued for its own sake, rarely can deal with practical considerations -- which may good for the increase of knowledge generally or the field of computer science, but bad for business (insofar as business is making money right now).