The problem with that is that doing a thing that carries its own intrinsic value forms a poor signal because you can't tell if someone is doing it for signalling reasons or intrinsic reasons.
If you decided that a hallmark of your tribe is brushing your teeth, then when you see someone brushing their teeth you still can't really tell if they're in your tribe or not.
The best signals have either neutral or negative intrinsic value because the more costly the signal is, the more likely someone doing it values the signal.
I think most people would claim that they support the truth. Even a troll might publicly claim to speak the truth, let alone someone who has an ideological motivation to believe likely falsehoods. Flat Earthers don't typically say "I know the Earth isn't flat". The best lies come with a grain of truth. And all appealing claims build on the listener's beliefs of how the world truly is. The truth is a great hook.
I trust science; I trust scientists less, and science journalism and its readers even less. Science as a human practice has never been a shining beacon of the truth. Even ignoring results that suit politics, I don't take much stock in psychology findings nowadays. And as someone interested in learning more about psychology, it's unfortunate. Science is valuable, but it should never obscure the truth. Even perfect science is not the sole arbiter of truth.
