First of all, a call to history: political/philosophical liberalism goes back to the times of the Enlightenment, when the name John Hobbes (or was it Locke?sorry, I’m on vacation and my network access is too limited). This philosophical direction deals with the “liberation” (lat. Libertas Liberty, French. Liberté) of man, or whether it is the action of constraints. This “liberation” can go in different directions depending on the manifestation of liberalism: liberation of the citizen from state constraints, until the abolition of the state, or of authority (see corresponding movement in the USA – but which are conservative again…, an archarchy would then be mentioned as an extreme form). Another game is economic liberalism, which frees the actors in the economy (not the pub! ;)) of state interference such as taxes, customs duties or working time laws. Then there is the idea of liberalism as that of a person who aims for equality of people before the law. This direction is closely related to humanism.
Conservatism (from lat.Conservare – preserve) aims in its word meaning to preserve the original order. In this respect, conservatism is a rather “braking” element of politics, which is strongly oriented towards “values” and “norms”. Conservatism also has many manifestations: in its extreme form, conservatism is, in my opinion, equivalent to orthodoxy or fundamentalism found in a religious context (Orthodox Jews, Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, Hindus, …) but also in the political direction (Orthodox Marxists, Maoists). Here the element of “standardization” is very pronounced in combination with the will to fight deviating / “abnormal” rigorously. Of course, there are also more moderate forms in conservatism: conservative Christians, national consevatives, etc.
But I think the question was meant differently: I interpret it in such a way that you want to know why there are liberals and why conservative people?As far as I know, education and the social environment as well as deeper brain structures play a role in the answer to this question. In my view, the role of education is relatively clear: liberal, free-thinking parents -> high probability for liberal children. The same applies to children of conservative parents.
But I think I can remember reading that brain structures play a role.In people who have pronounced mirror neurons in the brain (who are responsible for the ability to put themselves in other people ‘ – > empathy), they are more likely to think liberally, as they understand the other’s point of view better and thus understand the other’s point of view better and thus their own positions are not so fixed. Conservatives seem to have a more pronounced center of disgust. I remember an article about psychological tests in which conservatives are more responsive to disgust. Furthermore, the fear center and the brain’s ability to react flexibly could play a role: those who can only react inflexibly to changes in their environment and perceive the change as a threat will try to maintain the status quo, they will react. conservative. Furthermore, (personal opinion) conservative people seem to me to be more inclined to violence to achieve their goals and are opposed to the stranger. In my opinion, this too could be related to brain structures. In this respect, it is obvious that conservatism can be beaten into a child (traumatization, brain structure) rather than liberalism, which can hardly be conveyed by violence.