Resisting change is generally smart (to avoid exploitation) - there have always been charlatans and innate stubbornness seems to me to be valuable to resist them. Particularly when the cost of evaluating a claim is high, just dumbly resisting change can be beneficial. But change can also be good, obviously.
So I'm trying to figure out what you meant! Are you pointing to 'strengthen' as the main value? i.e. to preserve your existence in the world as one of the primary values? That makes sense to me and would certainly often be selected for.
I sort of took your argument a level further before responding. Your line of reasoning begs the age-old ethical question of if and how we should compel behavior in others (whether “the other” is physically someone else or simply our future self) for some longer-term or greater benefit?
The “strengthening” part of the answer is in essence a rejection of hedonism, as well.
I believe that is a tidy, principled way of resolving the conundrum of self-interest vs utilitarianism.