Does effort matter for skill?

When theorists consider the role of effort in skill, they tend to take one of two paths. Either they argue that effort plays an important, facilitative role for skill, or they argue that effort plays a detrimental, inhibitive role for skill. I reject both accounts. At their core is what I call _consistent effort assumptions,_ or assumptions that effort plays a fixed, generalizable role in the science or metaphysics of skill. I argue that these assumptions are empirically ill-informed given that a wide body of evidence supports a varied, situation-dependent relationship between effort and skill. I offer what I take to be the proper formulation of the scientific and metaphysical relationship between effort and skill: Both across and within domains of skill, there is no consistent, generalizable relationship between effort and skill. Asserting any such relationship or tendency confuses rather than clarifies our science and metaphysics of skill. To explain the widespread proliferation of consistent effort assumptions, I consider the extent to which normative and aesthetic commitments about effort and effortlessness are well-entrenched in both intellectual and popular discourse. Though effort or effortlessness may play a role in our evaluations of skill, their normative and aesthetic features should be disentangled from our science and metaphysics of skill and its underlying cognitive mechanisms.