<I didn't say all conservatives were selfish, or all liberals were selfless.

No, you just said that mostly they were.

I said that conservatives were less likely to take poorly paid positions in education when they can make a living elsewhere, and that liberals, because of their outlook of "putting a gun in someone's mouth", to use your quaint phrase, were more likely to take a job that doesn't pay well but which fills a demonstrated need.

I don't understand this statement at all. A liberal does have the philosophy of using armed force to remake society in his image*, but I don't get why this would make him more likely to take a low-paying, socially-beneficial position.

The conservative outlook is to take care of yourself and your own first, and then give what you can from what's left over.

I take it you disapprove of this attitude. The conservative philosophy is based on the truth that all productivity, wealth, and creativity are the product of human effort, which by right belongs to those who produced it. At this point it is theirs to give, donate, keep or spend as they wish. The key to a free-market system is voluntary associations.

The liberal outlook is to try to provide for everyone, and trust that society will do the same for you.

The last part is dreck. The only way a liberal can "provide for everyone" (who the hell is "everyone" anyway?) without the consent of those actually doing the "providing" is by force. Having "society" labeled as the "provider" is a convenient buzzword that neutralizes the concept of a fellow citizen being forced into compliance and substitutes a nice, friendly abstract source of wealth and resources: "society."

*This image may be "quaint," but I use it to strip away all the pretense of exactly what the left's operating parameters are.