* Note that some 2x2 MIMO antennae are designed to operate perpendicular to one another, i.e. one is vertically polarized and the other is horizontally polarized. The hAP ac3 and ax3 appear to be designed for parallel antennae. I am not sure if they can handle perpendicular, though this is exactly the situation I want to use the hAP ax3 for--with an Alfa APA-L2458M912 directional dual-band outdoor panel antenna.
Every dipole is polarized in direction along the stick. So if you turn both antennae in vertical direction, you get 2x2 MIMO with vertical polarization. More complex antenna systems (like antenna array) will have engineered polarization direction, so it's possible to have dual-polarized antenna system or something similar.
When talking about MIMO there's only one goal: have paths between one Tx antenna and one Rx antenna as much separated as possible from path between second Tx antenna and second Rx antenna. Ideal arrangement is if both Tx and Rx side use dual-polarized antennae as polarization (90° angle) separates both paths ideally. But in ideal case Tx and Rx polarization planes should be aligned precisely. There's a slight problem with polarization: it gets rotated when signal reflects, so the ideal placement only works ideally when there's clear line of sight between Tx and Rx pair of antennae. Inside typical hoes, with many walls reflecting signal, the polarization plane turns wildly, bounced signals not only interferes with "main" signal amplitude-wise, it also mixes both MIMO legs. Receivers are designed to cope with that (some are better, some are worse), but things become non-ideal.
Second possibility to separate paths of both MIMO legs is to have spatial separation ... which means to have Tx antennae placed at some distance between them (multiple wave lengths, at 2.4GHz that's multiple of 12.5cm / 5in ... where most APs fail miserably as they are not large enough; at 5.5GHz wavelengths are proportionally shorter, around 5.5cm/2.1in, so having spatial separation of at least one wavelength is easier to obtain). And on Rx side as well (where most modern WiFi stations, read smart phones, fail as well, only a few laptops with strategically placed antennae get it right). This way signals from both MIMO legs are always interfering each other, but again receivers are supposed to deal with it. Larger spatial separation of antennae (both on Tx and Rx side) helps a lot, so using antenna jumper cables to create larger spatial separation might be beneficial despite jumper cables attenuation (so this works best in case where signal strength is good and additional signal loss of a couple of dB doesn't cause too much of degradation). But since receivers are not capable of performing miracles, 2x2MIMO speed gain will almost never be 2-times.
The mix of both MIMO techniques works somehow as well, i.e. have two antennae separated as much as possible and have them turned at angle (+-45° works fine most of times).
The gotcha with turning dipole antennae away from vertical direction is, as @dchang0 mentioned, doughnut-shaped antenna gain pattern. So this really works fine in one direction (if antennae are tilted by 45° from vertical direction, then optimum direction is in horizontal direction, perpendicular to antenna plane - when one sees antennae as if they were parallel, not one behind the other).
So yes, maximizing performance of a NxM MIMO (most of times that's 2x2 MIMO) is a bit of a magic and one might be able to get things working really good in certain direction but not elsewhere.