When you have a three vector x\in\mathbb{R}^3, the fact that it is defined with three numbers, is not yet everything about it. An equally important property is how it transforms in rotations. Its transformation properties also justify imagining it as an arrow in the space. An arrow in the space is something that you can rotate like you can rotate stuff in the physical world.
A spinor \psi\in\mathbb{C}^2 that you use to describe an internal state of an electron is basically two complex numbers, but the most important thing is how these numbers transform in rotations. The formula for rotations is defined with Pauli matrices, and the rotation operator is \exp(-i\theta\cdot\sigma/2) (I don't remember if this was for passive of active rotations).
So if you just think it's a vector with certain transformation properties, you should get quite far.
Where you actually have these spinors is a different matter then. That probably can lead us to some depthful debate about content of QM again. Talking about the Dirac's field, isn't the Dirac's field itself a spinor-valued field? I'm not sure. I'm not sure what the Dirac's field is anymore... In non-relativistic theory of electrons you can at least simply replace the complex number of the wavefunction with a spinor, that means you replace \Psi:\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{C} with a \Psi:\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{C}^2 and postulate transformation properties.