I have read parts of his book and watched some of his lectures, and would hardly characterize him as a person who is independent and self-reliant (which is what the word individualist refers to).
Just for starters, allowing your well-being dependent on being above some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant.
> hardly characterize him as a person who is independent and self-reliant
Maybe you have some example as to why.
> allowing your well-being dependent on being above some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant.
This sounds like a mischaracterization of whatever it is is espoused. No one lives in a bubble, but a strong social network isn't antithetical to self-reliance, because self-reliance isn't an absolute nor is it purported to be - 0 people are entirely self-reliant in the literal sense. It's in practice about initiative, to move beyond a stagnant dependency. For example, seeking professional help in the instance of mental health to improve our lot, or reading a book to that same end, is an example of self-reliance at work. No one can make you do it. You have to want to improve. I see it as self-motivation.
I'm talking specifically about the life advice being dished out by Mr. Peterson. Given that you said "without knowing much about him" perhaps you should first familiarize yourself with what he is promulgating before continuing this discussion.
> Just for starters, allowing your well-being [to be] dependent on being above some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant.
It may be hard for some not to lump self-reliance (aka. being autonomous) and hierarchy-consciousness (to coin a word) together; which is where the third paragraph of my original comment comes into picture (something you seem to have ignored[1]).
---
[1] I can guess it because of this:
> [slothtrop]: 0 people are entirely self-reliant [in affective context] in the literal sense.
As a matter of fact I know at least 6 people who fit that description.
And:
> [Mr. Peterson]: I’m saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their [hierarchical] structures. It’s absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that … It’s a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that’s similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.
I know at least 6 people for whom it is not (anymore) "absolutely inevitable".
Seems rather circular then to suggest I familiarize myself with him more if you can't even be bothered to demonstrate how you've extrapolated what you reiterated using a source. Google yields no sources parroting that. Even the negative opinions suggest something completely different : "Ultimately, Peterson’s dismissal of happiness as the purpose of life is a problem because it aligns his argument too closely with an emphasis on an introspective attempt at self-sufficiency. Insisting that meaning can be forged out of effort emphasizes a kind of self-reliance which, while certainly useful and even admirable at times, misses the mark in telling most of the human story. Suffering for the sake of suffering in order to “tolerate the weight of our own self-consciousness” is, I suppose, the best we can aim for if the material world is all that exists." -- https://humanumreview.com/articles/why-we-need-jordan-peters...
> As a matter of fact I know at least 6 people who fit that description.
That can only be true if you don't appreciate the fact that outcomes which appear superficially as self-reliance don't materialize from a lifetime of not benefiting from social networks.
> I know at least 6 people for whom it is not (anymore) "absolutely inevitable".
Seems you drew your own ideas as to how this has anything to do with self-reliance.
How an individual leads their life has no bearing on whether there are hierarchical structures in the whole of society. You can go live in the woods, and humans will continue on without you with class structures.
Just for starters, allowing your well-being dependent on being above some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant.