Is your quote meant to suggest that you think all values come from external socialization?
In other words, your filters are set up to prevent people from taking advantage of you. That explains what you write next:
I think this might be very close to the core of what motivates you, Enneagram-wise. Type 5s are based on fear, and the fear you describe above is very 5w6. You prefer facts and logic to a personal connection because you feel that you can trust facts and logic (type 5), but you can't trust people (type 5 and type 6).
For a long time, I felt exactly as you say you do, here. I despise it when people take advantage of my good nature. When I was young, I didn't really have any evidence of subtle gradations of trust (of connection). I was either dealing with family, who showered me with love and affection, or I was dealing with strangers who would take advantage of me if I extended the level of trust I did to my family.
To some extent this makes good sense, but there are some things that don't fit in. For instance, there never was a time in my life when people actually did take advantage of me, so I don't have that experience motivating me to avoid such situations in future. In fact, I go out of my way to be helpful to others when I can, I just don't broadcast it. In a similar vein, I always ask for my charitable contributions to be anonymous. I'm not like these folks that want the notoriety, and to have their name appear all sorts of places where they have given money. Second, while my relatives are mostly decent people, I never did feel I could trust most of them, or connect with them to any great degree. Sure, I knew they wouldn't deliberately try to hurt me or be reckless, but many of them were unreliable on a day to day basis, would say one thing to your face and another behind your back, etc.
The problem is that if you use logic and reason to set the dial, it ends up acting like a switch, because logic only lets you say "true" or "false" by design. The tendency is to ask the question "Can I trust this person?" as opposed to "How much can I trust this person?" Once you become conscious of the second question, it adds a ton of flexibility in your relationships with others. Suddenly, you realize that you CAN trust someone who is occasionally not so trustworthy. For example, you might not trust someone enough to lend them money every time they ask (and they ask too much), yet also trust that very same person to have your back when you need their (non-financial) support. (And the "dial" analogy gradually becomes "lots of different dials", lots of different kinds of trust, not just different levels.)
Now this isn't accurate. I trust people in levels, based on their demonstrated behavior (actions much more than words). My SIL, for example, is one of my favorite people to spend time with, but she cannot plan her way out of that proverbial paper bag. We live several hours apart, so when we get together, I always have to allow for anything from her showing up hours early, to hours late, to cancelling at the last minute, to showing up with a friend. My low degree of trust is based on her unreliable track record of behavior, not on our personal connection which is fantastic. One reason I enjoy her company so much is that she understands me much more completely than most other people I know.
In terms of the topic of this thread, your elephant instinctively trusts logic, instinctively trusts the rider in just about every case, with only a few exceptions that the rider doesn't know how to handle. This results in a VERY high degree of self control. Your elephant doesn't just go and do rash things without the rider's OK except in very specific and rare cases. The part that you are "missing" that so many other people seem to intuitively understand, is that with that high degree of self control, you don't really trust your instincts (your elephant), and consequently don't hone those instincts.
So it's a tradeoff, like many things. So how do I or others benefit from my honing my instincts more?
In my case, I'm still rather distrustful of people, but instead of using a blanket distrust and adhering to logic, as I did for a long time, I now let myself trust people a little bit, gradually ramping up the trust as they get closer. Why? Because that's what they're trying with me, testing the trust level (the connection level) and ramping it up based on how I interact with them. Most of this happens wordlessly, so applying logic and reason to it is rather difficult. You have to gradually hone your instincts to detect these shades of trust.
Isn't it apparent in how they act? I will usually give new people the benefit of the doubt also, and trust them to some small extent and see how it goes from there. Similarly, I don't expect people to trust me much until I prove my trustworthiness by being as good as my word, honest, etc. I don't know what is so bad about that. Even the con artist can be identified if you focus on his actions rather than his charm and clever words.