The Puritan Work Ethic is a sign value; the perceived difficulty or effort expended in accomplishment of a task, not the outcome of that task, is the measure of the worth or value of the task. Accordingly, something that demands a long period of extreme effort and determination will be worth more than whatever comes to you easily.
How does that fit in with our concept of expertise, of which we so often say “he made it look so effortless”? If the value of an action comes from the (seeming) effort involved, then how can expertise be the (seeming) lack of effort?
According to the internal logic of the Puritan Work Ethic then, the expert is of less value, or is less righteous, than the untrained person, as the untrained person must work harder, put in more effort to accomplish the same thing.
By learning to do something well, you devalue it, according to this ethos. To continue doing work of high worth, you must always be doing whatever you are worst at. I wonder how much of sayings such as “In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” (The Peter Principle) and “no pain, no gain” are informed by this twisted “mortifying the flesh” approach to work.
Tags: business, philosophy, Post-Industrial, puritan, Work Ethic, Yuan Tsets’ai
These are the ramblings of 
I hope the Puritans didn’t apply that rule to the fishermen of their time…. for their sakes…and stomachs…It seems void of all logic to say that what seems effortless is effortless. To say that Tiger Woods makes his golf swing seem “effortless” is a fair statement. To ignore all of the years of practice, dedication, and sacrifice that made his golf swing appear that way is rubbish. A “do what you do worst” policy does not seem to be effective….unless your up for re-election.