If I interviewed someone I considered a "true liberal", and similarly a "true conservative", and we all had lots of knowledge (like scientific studies) and argu

If I interviewed someone I considered a "true liberal", and similarly a "true conservative", and we all had lots of knowledge (like scientific studies) and argumentation skills, I expect the liberal would tend to be more correct. I don't know if that should be called "bias". I think "liberal" and "conservative" are some of those words that were well chosen, perhaps because they are self-enforcing to an extent; I wouldn't know. More or less from first principles: a conservative prefers the status quo and the status quo is at least a local maximum for the conservative. Psychologically, conservatives tend to deal with fearful, uncertain things by clinging closer to the things they know are safe. On the other hand, liberals seek to change the status quo in the hopes of positive progress. They deal with uncertainty by embracing the source and taking a risk. The conservatives cling to the old teachings of the village that warn them to not eat white berries and to heed dreams of nebulous things. The liberals eat the berries and ignore the dreams, and sometimes they die (and bring death to the village) and sometimes they live. (Don't put too much stock in reading what I am saying using the colloquial connotations of the words. They will only be more confusing.) I do not say these things to disparage; although I of course have my own beliefs, I prefer understanding and no one is blatantly wrong for being a conservative or right for being a liberal. A conservative holds both right and wrong close to the chest; a liberal seeks them both out. When the conservative is right and the liberal is wrong, when the conservative is wrong and the liberal is right.... Three final points in this vein: most people will be conservatives; liberals will tend towards the truth; to be conservative and liberal are both qualities, with specific purpose and result, and as with all dual qualities there is a harmonious moderation. To return to the topic at hand, I think it is fairly true of this reality that there is plenty of good that can be, and therefore plenty of riches for explorers to bring back. It does not matter, and it can't be said, if the explorers themselves are foolish or wise; every truth lies exactly in the (conclusion of the) journey. It is what is made of the journey that speaks to right or wrong. For example, we have a lot of evidence that favors modern medicine. It follows that people should not advocate for "healing crystals" and the sort. To conclude, I will say that although I consider myself to favor being a liberal, and I tend to agree more with political factions that are ostensibly liberal ("the left", whatever that means), oftentimes I seem to align more with "the right". Take multiculturalism: I believe it is ultimately highly beneficial and scarcely harmful, but I agree with most of the short- and middle-term policies of a "right-wing" acquaintance on the topic. My reasoning diverges at some important points and my conclusion is quite different, but I think that is one of the closer agreements I would have with any of my acquaintances on short-term policy for multiculturalism. We each pursue that which we think is right. I admit many psychological biases, but I will say I try to be right and that I am a liberal, if I am to choose. But that is all I will say, and not words others may attribute to me.