That doesn't square with the fact that people who can afford it choose wildly-different places based on weather. Loads of people move from places like Edinburgh precisely due to weather, and move somewhere which is hotter, drier and sunnier, while I and some other people do the opposite.
Other things factor into moves besides weather, even when weather is a factor. Certainly there is variability but it seems pretty clear that warmer, sunnier, areas are most desirable based on the costs of housing.
When you really start looking at people with true choices, i.e. the very rich, they want moderate weather with hot enough summers for water sports to be a viable activity, but nice enough that other outdoor activities aren't prohibitively hot and extreme weather isn't a concern.
A good example of this is Lake Oconee Georgia. It's basically bumfuck nowhere yet there's a plethora of multi-million dollar homes because the weather and geography are what falls in the ideal range for most people. So of course it's generally inaccessible to the average person but the super wealthy are gating it off and enjoying it.
If you do a lot of outdoor sports, it's nice to have different season. I do skiing in the winter and I look forward to snow storm for example.
Totally, boat life for me in the summer and ski life for me in the winter.
people live places with various seasons and often have a favorite season. Their favorite is not always the longest season as well, which kind of throws out your rationalization theory.
In fact, this post wouldn't exist if what you said is true.
Not really, rather people get used to where they have to live and then rationalize the fact that they "like it" because they don't really have a choice.