If we say that both are only "interpretations" of Jung's work then Socionics becomes a really weird interpretation when most of it's definitions don't seem to have a retraceable root in Jung's work. If we compare the type descriptions Jung wrote in Psychological Types to the modern type descriptions of MBTI and Socionics, and we approach both as being purely "interpretations", then we can say that they're really poor interpretations because of how much they differ from their supposed source material. They're not describing the same types because the types in both systems are defined as being different things, because the types in both systems are defined on the basis of different things. The way many people I've seen as of yet approach the topic makes it appear as if types and functions/information elements are tangible things which we can observe in order to accurately describe and not abstract categories we create in order to make it easier for ourselves to understand reality, which isn't one I've really ever gotten.