Lilithx said:
He was an analytical empiricist and always claimed to have inferior feeling.
I think people's tendency to mix Ti/Ni up along with not having enough information on him causes them to think this way. Jung naturally explored esoteric things in order to analyze them and understand the human mind/patients more. Not only did he say his Feeling was inferior but he also mistook Ni for craziness in a woman..because as an ISTP/INTP, he worked with analytics and objective data. He called himself an ISTP once.
For what it's worth, the idea that Jung is an "empiricist" was promoted by himself generally in situations where he contrasted the approach of just telling facts as they are, however strange and unexplained, vs needing to have a theory of them (as he felt Freud was often tied to). This has all the flavor of irrational vs rational and not sensation-orientation.
It wasn't in the sense of publicly observable phenomena a-la most academic science, and Jung was and is a more mystical sort of psychologist than traditionally scientific.
That's why I've come to agree with his revision of his self-typing from T+S to T+N (latter in the Freeman interview) with weak sensation (as he phrased it, he was at variance with reality).
I think the real concept he was going for when he said he was telling facts wasn't that he was oriented by sensation so much as he had a healthier respect for the irrational side of the irrational-rational distinction than many of the classic Te-dom scientists.
Jung was brilliant, but far from the most unbiased man, and on reflection, I do think his clash with "traditional" science led to some weirdness in his typology's formulation that I've since found is best to revise. I think his concept of extraversion/introversion is overly conflated with the concept of sensation/intuition in his own work, and I wrestled with whether he had a truly clear line to draw between them, but really it seems like the issue is hopelessly confused. Both have a flavor of a "sense datum vs mind" dichotomy, and clearing this up in a more precise way has in my experience a lot to improve the typology.... and also explains why he might've misdiagnosed himself/corrected it later. Although there's also the possibility that he never considered himself a S type and was just nervous not to out himself as anything but a traditional scientist.
I'd say along with the attitude of the auxiliary, this is one of the most major clarifications his work needed. The attitude of the auxiliary is ambiguous precisely because the question of whether the aux is conscious is quite ambiguous and presented in a contradictory way in his work.
If conscious, one would surmise it is in the same attitude, and this was usually how Jung presented it himself. However, still, it's left unclear/over time I've found the better way is to adopt an 8-function model with
