[hayst4ck]

It's a question of where your core axioms come from.

The core axiom from which a person builds a belief system can be that contradictions are wrong or that authority (the bible/priest/parent) is right.

This is why conservatives frequently fail to respond to pointing out their contradictions. Their core axiom is one of authority, contradictions have little bearing on their analysis of what is true or not. New information cannot invalidate their already known truth, so what they already "know" twists and molds the new information, rather than their current understanding adapting to the new information.

This makes (real) education directly at odds with conservatism. Inquiry is an anathema to dogma. Conservatism is happy to teach things that are useful which is why you'll hear conservatives extol the virtues of technical education, but doesn't want to teach methods of inquiry or analysis or questioning ones self and ones assumptions, which is why you'll hear conservatism denigrate liberal arts or frequently secular education.

One confusing factor for American conservatives is that the American tradition that is being conserved is a somewhat liberal tradition. So conservatives attach themselves to many (correct) liberal values, but fail to see that they believe those values as the result of their tradition (meaning as a result of authority), and not as the result of a process of rational inquiry.

Put more succinctly: an educated population is a threat to authority and therefore conservatism.

[mensetmanusman]

This isn't a useful analysis because you are describing general human challenges beyond political bents.

Also India has a completely different alignment compared to US-Left/Right and they still struggle from similar issues.

[fluoridation]

I'm not sure veneration of authority is a central aspect of conservatism. As I understand it, conservatism is about returning to a previous state of affairs that is perceived as favorable compared to the present, or about maintaining the status quo. It seems to me that two people who were raised in different contexts could be considered conservative with respect to their own contexts, while at the same time one being an authoritarian and the other being a libertarian.

[Timon3]

As far as I have seen the conservative ideas of

> returning to a previous state of affairs that is perceived as favorable compared to the present

and

> maintaining the status quo

are primarily directed at hierarchy. The exact ideas of any conservative might differ between them (e.g. they might prefer different time periods to "return to", or focus on different areas of society and politics as important right now), but at their core they are directed at building and maintaining strict social/political/economical hierarchies. Often times it's about perceived "natural hierarchies" (e.g. meritocracy in the labor market, or competition in the free market), often times about traditional ones, and sometimes about preventing "unnatural ones", but I honestly can't think of any current or recent conservative legislation (internationally) that doesn't follow this pattern.