>>6
Static typing introduces a lot of complexity: inference, type classes, algebraic data types, existential types, phantom types, etc. That's a lot of scary words and complexity for a newcomer, and static typing has nothing to do with learning the functional paradigm. While dynamic typing doesn't catch type mismatch problems before accepting to compile your program, it's very simple to use and has a very low mental requirement - ideal for doing something other than type systems research. The error messages given at run-time on type errors are much simpler than Haskell's cryptic compile-time error messages.
Haskell has a very painful syntax, it's a far more complex one than Lisp's. You need to be wary of operator precedence, layout rules (Haskell can be indentation-dependant) and other syntactic sugars, which can be a stumbling block when using the language. Scheme has the simplest syntax of any other practical programming language. The rules can be explained in minutes. The syntax is unlike what most people are used to, especially if they come from a C-syntax background, but it’s easy to pick up and use.
Inspired by mathematics, Haskell uses lazy evaluation, meaning it is harder to understand when something will happen or write efficient software. Lisp has intuitive eager evaluation, which is what most human beings are used to.
The "REPL" of Haskell does not expose the entire language, it is very limitated: you can't modify every aspect of your program as you would in Lisp, so it impedes testing things interactively in GHCi. Haskell also can't efficiently load code at run-time, meaning you can't use Haskell for CLI or scripting as you can use Lisp in interpreter mode.
There are no easily accessible books for Haskell. Some of the newbie-oriented tutorials are actually quite daunting, making it hard to suggest reading material to somebody who has no background in mathematics.