None of the languages that let you achieve certain top qualities (top performance, proven correctness, concurrency, compactness, etc) are trivial or "feel natural". Haskell, Rust, APL / K / Q, Erlang, hell, even C++ and Scala (though these two are unnecessarily bloated). You got to study and internalize concepts that underlie them, change your way of thinking.

This is because reality is not intuitive, too.

Take natural numbers. They are utterly intuitive. Three-year-olds can grasp them. But as you try to calculate more and more complex things in the real world, you discover the need in counter-intuitive concepts like zero, negative numbers, fractions, even the aptly named irrational numbers. If you try to calculate √3 using the intuitive natural numbers, your solution will be rather approximate.

Same thing with many "intuitive" languages, from Basic-80 to ES6. You can solve a number of problems with them, but many solutions end up inexact and full of holes. In a lot of cases, this is acceptable, or seen as acceptable.

But when you need tools for a precise solution, you have to study some "advanced concepts" (another word for math) and take a language like Haskell which support them. Sometimes you end up with something as unwieldy as your average three-story analytic formula, but this is often not a shortcoming of the language but the nature of your problem domain, described correctly.