Here is a much newer take on this conversation, where I provided a large round-up of discussions. It goes over the philosophy of Scrivener, and why this full-featured outlining software doesn’t have an entirely different kind of outliner inside of each outline node’s text fields.
I really look forward to getting a solid grasp on Scrivener but I was disappointed to learn that your outline view mode isn’t what traditional outlining is.
It’s always interesting to see what people consider to be traditional or true. 
The kind of outliner Scrivener is, in the binder/outliner, is what inspired programs like Word, or we might say that is what they came from rather than the other way around. There isn’t a set group of necessary features you must have to be “true” or “traditional”, but Scrivener does have a lot of what we would consider to be traditional or true outlining features (for its class of outlining). The links I provided above will go into that in depth.
They may not be the kinds of features you are used to, for sure. But to provide a little perspective from another point of view, from someone that learned of outlining from programs like MORE, Acta, ShadowPlan, OmniOutliner, NeO, Tinderbox and Scrivener—I would feel extremely restricted in a Word-style outline myself, because I have almost no interest in a stylesheet based text outlining. I would rather have an outline where each node is an element that can be listed, saved into search trees, cloned, linked to, tagged with metadata, and so on. That, to me is the kind of outline that is very useful for non-fiction writers, not a text enumerator.
It’s okay to have different opinions, I’m just trying to get across that concept I guess. It’s not that Scrivener is lacking an outliner for writers, it just does things in a different way than what you’ve grown so accustomed to, and the kinds of things it does with its outline can be amazing for non-fiction in particular.