> 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".