Seattle Freeze

edited July 2008 in Seattle Culture
As someone relocating from the SF Bay Area to the Redmond area, I am curious what folks think about the so-called "Seattle Freeze" idea played up in some lifestyle articles. For example:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2005/0213/cover.html

I am wondering if this is more of a thing for single people living and trying to date in Seattle. I am wondering if married folks on the Eastside with kids in school meet other families in the same way it happens everywhere else. Thoughts whether the puget sound region is really any different socially in that way?
«1

Comments

  • edited February 2007
  • Very Real, Very Deep.............Now leave me alone. :shock:
  • I dunno. I don't live in Seattle (but Bellingham), but I find the people to very engaging in conversation. Much more so than the east coast or points south.

    Our first Christmas here and we had three different families invite us to their homes for dinner. That never happened in the myriad other place I've lived.

    You think Seattle is cold, you should try living in Pittsburgh. The circle of friends you need to break into has been acquainted since grade school. Add to that not liking sports, and you find your place in the leper colony on the outskirts of town. :(
  • As a Californian by birth, a Washingtonian most of my life, but having lived in Texas, Georgia, and NYC, I can agree with much of this article.

    A person in NYC is not polite but will give you the shirt off their back. A southerner is overly friendly, in an almost used car salesperson way. A Seattle native seems to be polite, but not friendly, almost seemingly looking out for number one.

    I work in law enforcement. Even the law enforcement community here is totally different. In NYC if they know you are a cop or a fed, fellow cops bend over backward to help you out. Law enforcement in general tends to be a very tight knit community. Knowing that at any moment you can be responding to "officer down" will tend to do that. Never in my career have I ever seen people in law enforcement writing tickets to other members of law enforcement WHILE ON DUTY, until I moved to Seattle. It's a different culture out here.
  • I'm was born here, and have to say that the stories about the "freeze" are sometimes overblown, the is truth to the concept. Basically, you've got two components: anti-transplant sentiment and general reservedness.

    The polite-yet-distant phenomenon is a complicated matter and I think that it's evolving in subtle ways. I would consider myself an example of the "old school" distant Seattlite. While I always try to be polite, I generally don't try to "butt in" on strangers' business. This probably seems unfriendly to New Yorkers that would make a pizza for a stranger but also think nothing of leaning on their car horn in traffic or generally behaving brashly in public. There is a bit of a holdover from Scandinavian culture there, I think (see also "Seattle Man Syndrome" which inhibits some that would approach women in bars, etc because it's intrusive) but that's not the whole story. As the Ballard diaspora continues, the shy children of fishermen are replaced by kids making six figures right out of college and edgy exploding cow artists that bring their own form of standoffishness.

    As for the anti-outsider feelings, well, they're definitely there. My family goes back to the 1800s in Seattle on my father's side but my mother moved here in the early '70s after marrying my dad. She has told me many stories about how she was often made to feel unwelcome and unworthy. Yes, people were usually polite, but they also felt that they were better than her and had no need for her company. This was the greatest place ever and didn't she feel grateful to be allowed here? What? She didn't think that Indiana was truly awful by comparison? Obviously she was stupid. I don't know how widespread that attitude really was or whether the culprits were old money locals or recent transplants trying to close the gate to paradise behind them. I have a feeling that this sort of think has a real shelf life, however, as the local population continues to churn. I could be wrong, but I think that the ridiculousness of folks who moved to Seattle in 2005 holding a grudge against folks that moved here in 2008 would be readily apparent.

    I for myself, I'm not going to going to be unkind someone just because of where they were born. I strongly dislike (maybe even hate) the idea of a lot of people moving here in the aggregate, but I can separate my disgust for the population boom from the individuals that may come here. The exception that I will make is for folks who moved here because they liked Frasier or Nirvana or something and then complain that the city isn't like it was on TV in the '90s or that it's not like NYC or something. When I meet those folks, I really do want them to feel welcome to move back to NYC if they love it so much. Everyone else (local or transplant) will receive the same polite yet reserved treatment from me. Yippee.
  • We talked about the Seattle Freeze in one of the open threads a while ago and I posted my theory/opinion of it there, but I'm too lazy to go find it (no search feature) at the moment. I'm not native, moving here from Texas about 6.5 years ago, but I feel completely at home here, and I felt completely out of place in Texas.

    From my experience, the Seattle Freeze has as much to do with the independent nature of many of the people here as anything else, which is one reason I feel at home. Yes, I'll tell you about where I went hiking this weekend, but don't expect an invitation. It's nothing personal, but if you want to come along... ask. I may very well still say no however, because I enjoy the solitude of the outdoors, so I usually go alone. I not only don't need people to go with me, I prefer to be out there by myself, or maybe with one or two close friends. I generally don't do things in large groups or with people I only slightly know. Just the way I've always been.

    That may make me seem distant and standoffish, but I can live with that because I don't particuarly care wht other people think of me either. That's another trait I find common here as well. Polite and honest, but not necesarily open with strangers or casual acquainstances.
  • The social dynamic I experienced growing up in the SF Bay Area was--

    As a young married couple with two jobs and no kids, we only socialized with a few friends from work. We didnt know any neighbors or really anyone in the suburban town we lived in, only work related friends from different towns.

    Once we had kids and my wife stopped working outside the home, then she met a lot of other moms and other families. This really picked up steam when the kids started school and we met a lot of other families that way. I would have to say that most all of these are really just acquaintances rather than friends. But within that fairly large pool of potential friends, my wife at least has actually made several real friends. I plan to put more effort into this after our move, but we will see how it goes.

    For me at least, it is not that important to have a large circle of acquaintances giving rise to obligations to socialize. But it is important to have a few close friends.
  • edited January 2013
    .
  • coup999 wrote:
    You can feel that there is a lack of the "rat race" mentality that drives people in other urban areas. It seems like people here really don't care about being successful or wealthy. Perhaps it has something to do with the liberal bias here where people think the government should take care of people, rather than going out and trying to make your mark.

    Or perhaps it has to do with realizing that wealth is not the be-all/end-all goal of life.
  • edited January 2013
    .
  • So I'm a socialist because I don't associate happiness with wealth? I think you are confusing capitalism with consumerism.
  • Seattle Freeze/Chill? I just found people to be more real and not the type to engage in trite conversation.

    I'll take the Seattle Freeze over the fake Los Angeles persona any day.

    And if people move to Seattle and bring their SoCal attitudes with them...much like those that one would see at the Kirkland Bars on a Saturday night...well...they deserve the "freeze".

    One of the easiest ways to avoid the "freeze" would be to not commit the same mistake that lots of transplants seem to commit...talking incessantly about how *great* it was wherever it was they came from. That should go for transplants to any city however.
  • The Seattle Freeze thaws, I have noticed, if I am sharing public transportation (bus, train) with someone who finds my choice of reading material curious and commentworthy, and vice versa. I love that about Seattle :D.
  • coup999 wrote:
    In our capitalistic society, the only thing that drives the economy forward is the desire to get ahead and to attain wealth. When people stop trying, that's when socialism starts and capitalism ends.
    I think the majority of Seattleites would be happier with more socialism and less capitalism. If life is more enjoyable that way, then why not?
  • Markor wrote:
    I think the majority of Seattleites would be happier with more socialism and less capitalism. If life is more enjoyable that way, then why not?

    But how do you *know* that you're enjoying your life, if you're not better off than your neighbors?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... ain122.xml

    If you believe in silly "theories" like Evolution, then this absolutely makes sense. The desire to do better than your neighbors, and the desire of your parents that you should do better than them is very strong within us. The definition of "better" is that you have more things (Caveman voice: "ugga ugga, my mud hut bigger than yours"). It's all about procreation, man...

    Capitalism (and the wealth it allows for) allows for increased happiness at the expense of a bunch of people that are miserable. You just have to hope you're born into a good family that isn't poor, have the correct color skin, a brain that functions well, and you too can exist on the nice end of the bell curve.

    It seems that in uber capitalist societies, organized religion plays a large role in placating the misery of those on the wrong end of the bell curve. If your poorness and suffering has a grander "purpose" and the payoff exists after you die, then it's all the more tolerable. Indeed, the wealth of others can actually be something you can look down on and pity because there's no reward for wealth and greed when you go to heaven. Again, it's all about relative reward.
  • Notabull wrote:
    It seems that in uber capitalist societies, organized religion plays a large role in placating the misery of those on the wrong end of the bell curve. If your poorness and suffering has a grander "purpose" and the payoff exists after you die, then it's all the more tolerable. Indeed, the wealth of others can actually be something you can look down on and pity because there's no reward for wealth and greed when you go to heaven. Again, it's all about relative reward.

    This is way off the mark Notabull. But if you replace "uber capitalist societies" with "any society with a highly uneven distribution of wealth" then I think you are spot on. Coincidentally, this explains why religion is so important in monarchies throughout history (Middle East today, Europe of yesteryear).
  • I found this article interesting, because I am a transplant myself (from Australia about 8 years ago). I must say that I have never noticed the phenomenon in the article.

    Then again, almost all of my friends I met through work. I have met a few others through some hobbies and stuff, but for the most part I tend to keep in touch with people I worked with, or knew somebody I worked with.

    Maybe the eastside is a bit different?
  • Notabull wrote:
    But how do you *know* that you're enjoying your life, if you're not better off than your neighbors?
    That applies to a lot of people! Probably doesn't apply so well to the "the best things in life are free" believers.
    The definition of "better" is that you have more things (Caveman voice: "ugga ugga, my mud hut bigger than yours"). It's all about procreation, man...
    I think in socialist countries the definition is different. If not, why would those in socialist countries work less than 40 hours per week, get 6 weeks paid vacation per year (even if they work at McDonalds), and all sorts of other benefits? It's more about having more time than things.
  • Markor wrote:
    The definition of "better" is that you have more things (Caveman voice: "ugga ugga, my mud hut bigger than yours"). It's all about procreation, man...
    I think in socialist countries the definition is different. If not, why would those in socialist countries work less than 40 hours per week, get 6 weeks paid vacation per year (even if they work at McDonalds), and all sorts of other benefits? It's more about having more time than things.

    Nope, I'm pretty sure he's right that the only definition of "better" is having more things than other people. I'll look it up and prove it to you.
    –adjective, compar. of good with best as superl.
    1. of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech.
    2. morally superior; more virtuous: They are no better than thieves.
    3. of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable: a better time for action.
    4. larger; greater: the better part of a lifetime.
    5. improved in health; healthier than before.
    6. completely recovered in health.
    –adverb, compar. of well with best as superl.
    7. in a more appropriate or acceptable way or manner: to behave better.
    8. to a greater degree; more completely or thoroughly: He knows the way better than we do. I probably know him better than anyone else.
    9. more: I walked better than a mile to town.
    –verb (used with object)
    10. to increase the good qualities of; make better; improve: to better the lot of the suburban commuter.
    11. to improve upon; surpass; exceed: We have bettered last year's production record.
    12. Cards. to raise (a previous bid).
    –noun
    13. that which has greater excellence or is preferable or wiser: the better of two choices.
    14. Usually, betters. those superior to one in wisdom, wealth, etc.

    I don't get it. None of those definitions involve a caveman. Well, at least we can take comfort in the fact that American social norms are the only legitimate ones in the world. So if that's how our society defines better it must be right.

    /sarcasm

    Personally, I'd feel better by getting ahead early on, having enough to be comfortable, and then not being tied to any particular job or line of work just because it pays well. I must be antisocial or something.
  • Notabull wrote:
    But how do you *know* that you're enjoying your life, if you're not better off than your neighbors?

    For me it's simple: I'm happy. I measure self improvement and happiness, not how "better" or "worse" I might be than others. I spend my time and money on things that I enjoy, and I couldn't care less how that stacks up against others or what they think about it. When I see a neighbor's nice car (as an example) I think that it is good for them, not that it somehow reflects on me or I need to get one better. I've had an expensive car, and I prefer what I have now. I suppose for some trying to be the best or have the most expensive is how they get self worth. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not howI'm wired. For me it's about being better than I was and being happy with what I have.

    </hippie>
  • </hippie>

    I didn't know hippie was an XHTML tag now. Boy has that language gotten out of hand.
  • "I think in socialist countries the definition is different. If not, why would those in socialist countries work less than 40 hours per week, get 6 weeks paid vacation per year (even if they work at McDonalds), and all sorts of other benefits? It's more about having more time than things."

    I grew up in one of these "socialist" countries. I put it in quotes because England is socialist when compared to the US, but people there don't really consider the system to be a socialist one.

    In England, pretty much everyone gets about 5 weeks of vacation when you start a job. Most people go on one big vacation a year (perhaps a week or two) and use the rest of the time off to spend with the kids at Easter, or Summer, or just to sit around the house. For sure, it's a nice thing to have. In my current job in Seattle I get three weeks of vacation. My take home pay for my job, and taking into account the purchasing power of that money, means I am much better off in the US than in England. I can afford to take unpaid time and still come out ahead of my peers in the old country. So I do...

    Gas prices in the UK are about double what they are here. They don't fluctuate as much because it's so much more heavily taxed, so they're more usually three times as much. The people there are no different, though. If gas (petrol, mate!) was $2 a gallon, everyone would have an SUV just like here...

    Why are there so many flights to New York from London? People actually make the five hour flight for a weekend shopping trip. They love the low sales tax, good exchange rate, and that they can buy more stuff!
  • Notabull wrote:
    But how do you *know* that you're enjoying your life, if you're not better off than your neighbors?

    For me it's simple: I'm happy. I measure self improvement and happiness, not how "better" or "worse" I might be than others. I spend my time and money on things that I enjoy, and I couldn't care less how that stacks up against others or what they think about it. When I see a neighbor's nice car (as an example) I think that it is good for them, not that it somehow reflects on me or I need to get one better. I've had an expensive car, and I prefer what I have now. I suppose for some trying to be the best or have the most expensive is how they get self worth. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not howI'm wired. For me it's about being better than I was and being happy with what I have.

    Amen, Brother. I just don't think that's the majority. Most people judge themselves based on their position in social circles, how much crap they have compared to others, how much more "important" their job is compared to others, etc.

    Classic dinner party conversations:

    A) Where do you live?
    B) I live in the CD.
    A) Oh, I live in Madrona (aha! I'm probably more wealthy than you! Are you jealous?)

    A) What do you do for living?
    B) I'm a doctor.
    C) I see. I'm a nurse. (Shit, you're more educated and more respected than me! I hate myself!)

    A) What car do you drive?

    A) I just got a promotion and a huge pay raise, how's your job going?

    It's not just people in the states that are like this. IMO, if you have a society in which there is a more disproportionate spread of wealth, then these conversations just happen more often. It's the system, man!!!
  • "I don't get it. None of those definitions involve a caveman. Well, at least we can take comfort in the fact that American social norms are the only legitimate ones in the world. So if that's how our society defines better it must be right."

    I don't think that the US defines "better" as any different to the rest of the world. IMO, people are pretty much the same the world over. In some countries they have more money and can buy more crap. In other countries with less money, they instead have a moral superiority over the US with their "materialistic" tendencies and then secretly wish they could afford a new BMW.

    I get fed up of hearing about how people in Italy have it right, with their wine drinking, relaxed, inexpensive lifestyle that focuses on friends, family, etc. They're just the same as people in the US. If they had more money OR more easily available credit, they'd be at the mall foaming at the mouth like most people in the states.

    Again, I'm generalizing, but with some experience of these countries and culture at least...
  • To me it doesn't feel like a freeze -- it feels more like a cone of lethargy born of some combination of self-congratulation, complacency, lack of interest in/ability to engage in critical thinking (but at the same time an unshakable confidence that one's own opinions and beliefs are correct and right), and tendency to take the mild expression of ideological differences as a personal attack.

    Present company excepted, of course.

    It is deeply weird and unlike any other place I've ever lived or spent enough time to feel entitled to make generalizations about its social mores. Even in Portland people seem more gregarious and more adept at, say, taking an ironic distance from selves, beliefs, etc. I came here straight out of college back east and for the first few years this scenario played itself out several times. I'd be talking to someone at a party, having a fine chat apparently enjoyed at both ends. Me: "Listen, I've enjoyed this, and I'd love to get together sometime for coffee or a drink." Other person, 100% serious: "Oh thanks, but I have enough friends right now." Even from single men I'd get this, and I am a not-hideous female. It was surreal to me but in the intervening years I've often told that story and people, men and women alike, get excited, saying Wow, that happened to me too, isn't this one nutty town. This is not the only way that in Seattle the concept of "enough," in non-material senses, feels atrophied to me. Which I suppose plays into my perception of complacency.

    Possibly related? A few friends of mine, visiting at different times from different places, have made identical observations that people in Seattle spend a lot of time in bookstores and buy a lot of books, but they sure don't seem to have read them.

    Please don't get all up in my Hibachi over these comments, Dear Readers. I'm here with my good, stable job that I get to on excellent public transportation, shacked up and saving down-payment money with a prince of a guy, so obviously I've made my peace with things. There are many factors to recommend Seattle and a lot of much worse places to be (cough Pittsburgh cough). I don't even opine like this unless prodded to do so, and in the spirit, I hope, of sharing information.
  • Civil Servant, you made some interesting observations. I've got a few guesses about why people might feel like they have enough friends.

    1) Seattle is physically remote from the rest of the nation, but unlike several other remote parts of the country it has a mobile work force. If you live in NYC, there are perhaps a dozen major cities within about 100 miles that friends might move to for better jobs. In Seattle, there isn't one, unless you include Everett or Tacoma.

    2) The Seattle metropolitan area covers a lot of space. It's difficult to meet up with friends who live in Everett if you live in Tacoma, unless you can find a nice venue in the middle to meat in. Which leads to...

    3) For some reason, Seattle doesn't have very enjoyable or very used public spaces. Maybe it's the weather, but when I go to other major cities, they have parks that are filled with people. Here, not so much.

    4) The winter doldrums mean that even if you found a good place to go meet up with said friends, you might find it hard to get the motivation to actually schedule a meeting.

    Anyways, add that all together and unless your new friend lives in the same city you do, it can be a trial to build that friendship. If someone has gone through that enough times, they might just throw in the towel a little bit.

    OK, that was all speculation, but does it ring true to anyone?
  • I think people work too hard, suffer from depression due to weather and are disproportionally introverted in this town. I wouldn't take it personally.

    Me, I was lucky to move here knowing several very gregarious friends, so I never had to work to break into groups. In fact, I'm probably the reason some folks think there is a freeze - I just don't have time for any more friends.
  • 3) For some reason, Seattle doesn't have very enjoyable or very used public spaces. Maybe it's the weather, but when I go to other major cities, they have parks that are filled with people. Here, not so much.

    Except for Green Lake and Alki on a warm sunny day...

    I have noticed that Seattle natives generally take for granted the awesome variety of nature around them. I was floored when I met some 40 somethings native to the area who had never been to Rainier or Mt St Helen. I think that same apathy extends to the parks here, which generally speaking are pretty nice, pleasant to be in, and almost always empty. The midwest parks I frequented prior to moving here are boring (flat, mostly artificial, with little to see other than well manicured grass and trees) yet they get more use. Hard to explain.
    4) The winter doldrums mean that even if you found a good place to go meet up with said friends, you might find it hard to get the motivation to actually schedule a meeting.

    This is definitely true. I've had people cancel plans or skip out on a group meet because "it's raining". I don't know how you can ever do anything in this city if rain bothers you that much. Again, this seems mostly to impact natives and CA/AZ transplants. The midwesterners and northeasters with memories of -20° wind chills, blizzards, etc don't seem to mind when it's 40 and drizzling.
  • Notabull wrote:
    Classic dinner party conversations: ...
    How true. That's a big reason why I don't socialize much outside of a close circle of friends who don't spew that crap.
  • edited June 2008
    Notabull wrote:
    Gas prices in the UK are about double what they are here. They don't fluctuate as much because it's so much more heavily taxed, so they're more usually three times as much. The people there are no different, though. If gas (petrol, mate!) was $2 a gallon, everyone would have an SUV just like here...
    Well, if people there are no different, then why did they vote for heavily taxed gas, five weeks of paid vacation for everyone, etc.? Americans vote very differently than people in socialist countries do. Namely, the majority here, unlike in those other countries, consistently vote to make their lives worse in the long run. Like they'll vote for tax cuts (for the rich mainly), ignoring the fact that it pushes the US toward insolvency.

    There are probably millions of people in the US who take no more than one week of vacation a year, and would be fired from their job if they tried to take more. There lives would probably be better if they got five weeks of paid vacation, universal health care etc.

    In Sydney, people complained to me about the exorbitant taxes, but I had to point out to them that they had few panhandlers and the city was relatively very clean and safe.
Sign In or Register to comment.