I tend to agree. I think of the conscious mind as more like an executive at the top of a huge organization, with like 10 different layers of management and tens of thousands of mostly unseen people beneath it in the org chart.

Every time you go up a level of management, the information that flows upward becomes more high-level and abbreviated, because that information is flowing to people that have to make very high-level decisions about things. The executive that everything ultimately flows up to is still exposed to a tremendous amount of information, but it's an almost comically simplified view of the whole picture. Everyone involved (including the executive) can only hope that every layer of simplification always retains the most important and most accurate information, to maximize the executive's ability to make good decisions.

Likewise our minds have layers upon layers of processing, from raw sensory input that gets collected into perceptions of discrete objects, up through the instincts and memories that decide which of those objects are threats (and if so, which of those threats should trigger the fight-or-flight response, etc.). That's not even getting to the more abstract processes that contribute to feelings of tribalism, thoughts on economics, religion, existentialism, and so on. Most abstract of all (IMO) is how the brain puts everything together to trick us into thinking that we can sense what's going on within other people's minds (empathy, basically, which gives us reasonable educated guesses about how other people are responding to us, while tricking us into thinking that we understand other people far more than we really do).

The conscious mind can only make decisions about high-level data that the endless layers of the subconscious prepares for it, like managers presenting their executives with high-level status reports condensed from mountains of low-level data. The quality of the executive's decisions are capped by both the the executive's own rationality, as well as the quality of the condensed data that gets passed up the chain.

A real life example is someone who feels threatened when they see someone of another race or religion. Such a person might be being rational in their own way, in that they're making decisions based on what they think are facts about the world and their place in it. But such a person doesn't realize that fear or other human flaws are causing garbage data to propagate up to their conscious mind. A racist's problem, for example, is that they're often just rationally responding to the garbage data that is being given to them by their subconscious. They fear people that look different from them because that's what's in the status reports that their subconscious prepares for them every week, but they haven't figured out yet that their own mind is an unreliable narrator for the world around them. We all are unreliable narrators for ourselves, and there's no way to avoid it- the best we can do is try to understand it and make our best effort to maintain a healthy level of skepticism and rationality about everything.

I don't pretend to know anything about any of this stuff on an academic level, this is just a view that I've come around to over the years. I'm just a lifelong armchair philosopher, and this is the best I've been able to come up with so far.