Maybe it is a problem of puchasing fuzzies and utilons together, and also being hypocritical about it.

Essentially, I could do things that help other people and me, or I could do things that only help other people but I don't get anything (except for a good feeling) from it. The latter set contains much more options, and also more diverse options, so it is pretty likely that the efficient solution for maximizing global utility is there.

I am not saying this to argue that one should choose the latter. Rather my point is that people sometimes choose the former and pretend they chose the latter, to maximize signalling of their altruism.

"I donate money to ill people, and this is completely selfless because I am healthy and expect to remain healthy." So, why don't you donate to ill people in poor countries instead of your neighborhood? Those people could buy greater increase in health for the same cost. "Because I care about my neighbors more. They are... uhm... my tribe." So you also support your tribe. That's not completely selfless. "That's a very extreme judgement. Supporting people in my tribe is still more altruistic than many other people do, so what's your point?"

I guess my point is, if your goal is to support your tribe, just be honest about it. Take a part of your budget and think about the most efficient way of supporting your tribe. And then take another part of your budget and spend it on effective altruism. (The proportion of these two parts, that's your choice.) You will be helping people selflessly and supporting your tribe, probably getting more points on each scale than you are getting now.

"But I also want a recognition of my tribe for my support. They will reward me socially for helping in-tribes, but will care less about me helping out-tribes." Oh, well. That's even less selfless. I am not judging you here, just suggesting to make another sub-budget for maximizing your prestige within the tribe and optimize for that goal separately.

"Because that's too complicated. Too many budgets, too much optimization." Yeah, you have a point.