Ah, language. It seems that is the crux. Yes, our languages - and indeed all human languages I am aware of - suggest that ideas are real in the Platonic sense (what you describe pretty much amounts to Platonic realism), which is why for most of modern history numbers, ideas, theories, compositions, memes, even literary characters and entire novels have been thought and often treated as existing in a special realm of ideas, as abstract entities. But language is a human thing and reality another. I agree with your observations, but I do not draw the same conclusions. The history of philosophy is rife with this object-based thinking, and I have never found it convincing.
My thinking is not really object based. It's in the middle of process and object based, or relational and object.
For example, depending on the scale we could consider things as objects for a truer map of the reality, or we could consider a relational ideology like string theory.
As for language, I see how you can come to that conclusion. I see language, stories, myths though as productions of dna and I see dna as something central to the universe, and i also see a sort of Irish cross where story, such as the story of the atom or string theory, effect dna, indirectly, or since we now know that, directly, by changing the environment.
For example we could say that without the story of Jason or Perseus, the Greek minds would not have been in a culture where it was a heroic act to be willy and we would not have computers today - aristotilian logic being the foundation of all digital architecture.
Someone would say that it is a leap to connect a mythology to the pathos of a people. That is not intuition that does that. It is logic. A myth has a biological function, as we have measure among indigenous people, and serves as much a role as breathing oxygen in the survival of a species.
Even the idea of someone believing in god at some point is required for science. There has never been a scientific experience which wasn't laid on a foundation of Newtonian phsyics, and as we know newton drew his inspirations and ideas from astrology. Without astrology, there would be no science. Astrology was the required step for the evolution of science to emerge as a child of astrology speaking in terms of sequence.
We can be atheist scientists but forever our work will lie on the back of gnostic greek philosophers. There is no way to dodge this fact.
As for being an ENTP...that may or may not be.
The way I live my life is more ENTJ based. The way I write is also more ENTJ based. I State my belief and then I give an example and I go on like that in a very linear way.
Most people who think I am random think so because their scope of intelligence is very, very narrow and to them anything other than a strict constellation around the subject matter is random.