Yes in a sense, and it seems a bit more complex than that.
It seems that all of our understandings and models are necessarily simplistic, as reality seems to be complex beyond any ability to tie down in detail. Thus the very idea of “Truth” of “knowing” seems to be hubristic, and it seems that something more like “contextually useful approximation” is a more accurate and humble and realistic approach to what we do in practice most of the time.
Thus we can see that evolution often works in contexts that are highly constrained by time and energy, and thus selects simple models that work quickly with better than random probability- thus we all favour simple ideas, like right/wrong, true/false, etc, and such simple ideas can have real world survival utility; and when time and energy constraints are lifted, it is often useful to have much more complex and nuanced models.
So, yes, we all like to be right, at many different levels; and when we have the luxury of time and energy to deal with really complex issues, acknowledging our fundamental uncertainties is a necessary place to start. Part of that is acknowledging that all simple models have contexts where they have greater survival utility than more complex models. Part of the art of life is judging the sort of context that is most important in any instant. Not a trivial problem space.