I think this is a usual intuition. Seems wrong to me, but I don't know how exactly to fix it.

I am similarly frustrated by moral intuitions which follow this pattern: (1) Imagine that you see a drowning person, and you are a good swimmer. Is it your moral duty to save them? Yes, it is. (2) Now imagine that you see a drowning person, but you absolutely can't swim. Is it your moral duty to try saving them? No, it isn't; you would probably just kill yourself and achieve nothing. (3) There is no urgent situation. You just have a choice between learning to swim and e.g. spending your time watching anime. Is it your moral duty to learn to swim? Uhm... no, it isn't. Why would it be?

So, in other words, there are obstacles which can absolve you from a moral duty, but you don't have a moral duty to remove these obstacles.

Actually, your situation seems a bit similar to this pattern. Being irrational and doing "precommitments" by instinct absolves your morally. If you become rational and good at introspection, learn game theory and understand your motives, then you supposedly have a moral duty (to avoid acting on these instinctive "precommitments" without replacing them with conscious ones). However, no one supposedly has a moral duty to become more rational and introspective.

Seems like one part of the problem is skills which are not under your control in short term, but are under you control in long term (being good at swimming, being rational and introspective). Our intuition is too quick to classify them as immutable, because in the short-term scenario, they are. So these skills give you moral duties, but you get no moral rewards for developing them.