But even if you are highlighting 'advantage seeking' as the idea around which all human behavior pivots, it still comes down to what is true or not. We still need to determine (and this is not always easy) does X produce an advantage, true or false? And how do we determine the true nature of an advantage? Humans tend to crave certainty and predictability in order to navigate a dangerous world, which strongly suggests we are likely to need to determine what is true. — Tom Storm

I am not sure if humans seek *what's true" or "what works". However, I do agree with you that this is not a very straight-forward question. But, I think that we are far more practical than we think we are and far less co concerned with "the true nature" of our beings or the universe and we are profit-maximising beings seeking our own advantage and we are brilliant at that. That doesn't mean we are necessarily bad, but this is as far as our capacities go and any attempt to learn about our true nature would fail.

I would further argue that what is "true" for us can only be reached through practicing not through questioning. You just become better in this everyday whether you like it or not because it falls within your natural abilities. Endless debates about such questions as whether God exists or not would only make us good at debating but wouldn't get us one inch closer to.the truth because it has never been our attention and we never really cared enough to know the truth. However, if we recognise that prayers would bring us more success we are more likely ro pray for.God and if science proves more beneficial, we would be more inclined to use science to our own benefit and why not attach good labels to it. It deserves it!

our inclination is not primarily towards truth-seeking, but rather towards advantage-seeking — Raef Kandil

Have you ever read Nietzsche? He combines the two motives of truth and advantage-seeking into one motive, Will to Power. Will to power isn't the desire on the part of an autonomous subject to choose to will power over others, it is the creative outcome of a competitive relation of drives within a psyche. Will to power results in the creation of value systems that assimilate and organize the world toward pragmatic ends of motivated sense making. The kind of truth you describe in your OP is motivated by a Will to truth, which is merely a subset of the Will to Power. Put differently, Will to truth is a value system (or metaphysics) that thinks of truth as correspondence, adequation or coherence in relation with external facts, objects, the way things really are. By contrast, the only kind of ‘truth’ that Will to Power, as the creation of value systems, recognizes is truth as production, enaction, becoming.

“It is no more than a moral prejudice that the truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the world's most poorly proven assumption. Let us admit this much: that life could not exist except on the basis of perspectival valuations and appearances; and if, with the virtuous enthusiasm and inanity of many philosophers, someone wanted to completely abolish the “world of appearances,” – well, assuming you could do that, – at least there would not be any of your “truth” left either! Actually, why do we even assume that “true” and “false” are intrinsically opposed? Isn't it enough to assume that there are levels of appearance and, as it were, lighter and darker shades and tones of appearance – different valeurs, to use the language of painters? Why shouldn't the world that is relevant to us – be a fiction? And if someone asks: “But doesn't fiction belong with an author?” – couldn't we shoot back: “Why? Doesn't this ‘belonging' belong, perhaps, to fiction as well? Aren't we allowed to be a bit ironic with the subject, as we are with the predicate and object? Shouldn't philosophers rise above the belief in grammar? With all due respect to governesses, isn't it about time philosophy renounced governess-beliefs?” – The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (1901/1967 Will to Power.)