I've been working with an idea since, um, yesterday. Tell me if it's helpful or if you think it could work.
I was thinking it might be useful to think of the IMs like this: Each IM has an area of information it is "archetypally" associated with. The most obvious is Se, being archetypally associated with sense perceptions of the external world. As far as predicting how IMs will work in people, or just thinking about how they work, it might help to consider each IM as the way of perceiving that attempts to treat everything, insofar as it is possible, as the sort of information it is archetypally associated with. So, Se, being associated with sense perception, tries to treat all information as though it were sense perception, or as though it had the qualities of sense perception information: definite, certain, differences in magnitude, clear distinctions, etc. This is where we get the qualities generally associated with Se from. Se-egos tend to be decisive because they tend to treat all information as though it were as definite as the information we get from our senses. They tend to focus on the metaphorical "size" of each person around them: who's bigger, who's smaller.
Ne is another example. Ne is associated with the intrinsic properties of objects (Aristotle's "formal cause"). So Ne-egos tend to treat all information as though it were information about the properties of objects. So they tend to approach situations from the angle of "what can this do?" "what is it, as defined by all the different things it can do?" "how can I get to know this thing better by figuring out more of the things it can do?"
I have a few ideas about what sorts of "archetypal associations" one might make, but nothing solid yet. So, what do you think? Potentially useful/worthwhile?