What about reducing bugs through code reuse, in the form of libraries and frameworks? Because they have more users, more bugs have been found, reported and fixed. e.g. using standard libraries instead of writing your own.
Often the time saved using a library is worth the small risk, but if we're talking about "how to write correct software" you'll want to be weary of code reuse.
Using libraries is still generally a good idea, but its effect on software correctness is a bit of a coin toss.
Another problem with libraries in the wild is that as they add features, they add bugs. If they don't add features, they lose popularity and don't get used. If they are commercial, they are less popular, and get fewer bug reports (and fewer eyeballs checking for closed source). People don't want to pay for correctness.
I think you're right: correctness is pretty far down the priority list. Good enough is good enough.
BTW: static types have correctness benefits, but dynamically typed languages are very popular - and when static types are used, it's for performance and documentation. Languages using static types for correctness (e.g. ML family and haskell) are not mainstream.