To put it short: I would like to know whether upon being confonted by a contrasting point of view, you rather stick to what you originally believed in, or rather explore the possibility of having found a superior alternative.

In the past, I have mostly tended to examining the possibility of someone else being right as opposed to convincing someone else of my point of view. I attribute this mainly to social pressure; being a TCK, my point of view was mostly a minority opinion in my school environment, and inorder to avoid conflict, I focused on evaluating for myself, what possible truths lay in the ideas that other people stood for. It was on the one hand my drive to understand the motivations of other people, and on the other to avoid conflict.

By now I've noticed that I have been sticking to an extreem for most of my life, and that I should wander more to a balanced out attitude. Thus I'm working on making other people understand me and most importantly, to enter into conflict whenever I see that my interests are at risk... which is very difficult, given that I havn't much practice in either of these.

I've learned alot in my global childhood, and I am definitely a TCK. That is my identity - and that is what I will stand up for. I want to fight for what I have learned; to stop adapting and to start acting. I've always been personally progressive, and am trying to become more conservative. To outsiders, I will generally still appear to be progressive, because I want to change things, but on the inside, I will have decided to stick to certain values.
Of course I will still change myself and learn, but I want to be more balanced out. I want to stand for change. I want to be both conservative and progressive - depending on the situation.

Some applied situations, in which I feel this conflict between being conservative as well as progressive: what obligations exist between family members, how a man-woman relationship should work, what the importance of focusing on one language is in life, etc... eventually influencing the way I think about economics, law, and other methods supporting decision-making. An everyday problems is for example the things I talk about with acquaintances while eating lunch. Or the way I talk with guys about girls. I want to find a right balance between telling others, that they sound like idiots, but also that what they say does have a point. (Of course girls aren't all about looks, even though rarely anybody acknowledges that, but I'll also laugh at any guy who says they don't care what a girl looks like). I want to be able to say what I think, without having other people think I'm criticising them.

I have the internal problem - that I havn't yet found the right balance between trying to change things, as opposed to fitting in(whereas changing things requires the most effort). I want to represent the state of ambiguity - in which I always show, that I am aware of different contrasting aspects to any question.
Being a TCK has tought me to always see the two sides to a coin. Wheras most people I meet, are aware of both sides, but represent only one in public... why else do most countries have two major political parties(with opposing core values)?

Being a TCK is about ambiguity; and I think about this in terms of being either conservative or progressive...
Can any of you relate to this?

(this ambiguity, the state of not being emotionally attached to any one side of an argument, thus balancing somewhere in the middle, slightly undefined in what your standpoint is)

(sorry it took me so long to this final thought... and its more of a final thought because I'm tired, not that I'm satisfied with the result. I started writing this comment 5 times in the past 1.5 hours...)

Could you be more specific as to what you mean by "conservative" and "progressive"? Those words have many different meanings...