I would contend that not being CS-trained doesn't eliminate them from the pool of people who could benefit from knowing Lisp and similar languages. As a programmer, unless you just want to be outclassed in a few years, you have to stay on top of developments in the industry and the history of the industry. Knowing the languages that modern languages pull their tricks from is one such way. And it doesn't take a CS degree to do that with many of the resources being put out these days.

You do not need to be a CS major to appreciate Lisp.

I've had a number of fun conversations discussing and demonstrating Scheme with novice and 'rank-and-file Java/C#' types. The ones who find programming languages fun in themselves are the sort of people who light right up when they're introduced to something like Scheme. That's really all it takes is just a bit of passion and curiosity to make the leap.

In my experience, professional folks I've spoken to have either never heard of Lisp or have associated it with antiquity. You'd be very surprised who'd appreciate being shown new ways of doing things.

I don't think the target demographic of Lisp is "CS-trained" people. Do you? Why? Because functional programming, which is actually a lot more like the math everyone else learns, is somehow for "wonks?"

When you say things like this, part of me hears you saying, "I have not invested time learning this skillset. However, people argue I should. So I have decided said people are 'wonks,' and therefore I can safely dismiss them." Basically anyone with any differentiation from your skillset falls into that definition.