I would say that's not exactly accurate. Liberal and conservative mean very different things in sociology, political science, economics and other disciplines. Also, as certain ideas become either discursively or scientifically mainstream, the words themselves can take on different meanings.
Geography also matters considerably, as the Chinese terms liberalism and conservatism vary greatly from the west. In certain societies, because of different historical precedents, there are different givens. I know that sounds kind of culturally relativist, but language and terminology often is.
I also don't feel personal goals play into ideology as much as having an ethical framework. That's sort of the Charles Barkley argument, i.e. "now that I make a lot of money, I'm a Republican." That's a diluted and self-interested form of moral and political reasoning and is one of the great democratic flaws societies face. One can still believe in a progressive tax system as more just despite a higher percentage of their wealth extracted from them because of it. Similarly, one can support a small state, despite relying on it for entitlements, the argument being for decreased expenditures elsewhere in the state apparatus.
Where I do agree with you is that there is a lot of ideological entrenchment where people back political parties claiming to represent a particular side or quadrant of the spectrum, but not really doing so. The platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States have been all over the place since the mid-1800s on a variety of issues and they're rarely consistent ideologically on either side.
@Leigh 's definition), I'm not against immigration but for controlled immigration big difference) couldn't careless about that whole transgender bs toilet debate ). 
