As others have answered in this very thoughtful thread, it's a most deep and puzzling question. As is the distinctions between ideas, intentions, and actions - the basis of much jurisprudence - which is examined here too.

However there is the truly horrifying idea in Henrik Ibsen's Peer Gynt, which once you comprehend it is so dark that even those who call themselves 'nihilists' recoil from it. And yet maybe we should celebrate it because it's Kierkegaard through and through - that we have 'no essential self'. If we are possessed by a soul it is as an observer, a witness to a perfect drama involving other mind-bodies, each equally devoid of a central "self". That can be a relief. But as was discussed here recently with regard to mindfulness and Buddhism, that "idea" can itself be dangerous, for some it's a license to be a dick. Perhaps nature/evolution is clever in giving us all a little anxious piece, a "self" that can be hurt, since that allows social structures.

I'd argue that a person is their decisions. That encompasses actions - we generally decide whether and how to act.

This also rings true when you add "bad thoughts" alongside "bad ideas". Everyone has bad thoughts in addition to bad ideas. Part of what makes a good person is their ability to discard (or at least decide to not act on) bad thoughts. Part of what makes someone seem wise is their ability to discard (or decide to not act on) bad ideas.

I think every person entertains many ideas. Being receptive to possibilities does not define you, but it may incline you. 'Criticism' can play a valuable role in helping you see demerits in your inclinations before you misbehave.

That is a very deep question.

Here is an example of a range of ways to think about that question: https://philosophynow.org/issues/149/What_is_a_Person

If one thinks that agency (and actions) is what defined personhood, it is worth having a framework for thinking about free will, such as https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-think-about-free-will-in-a-w...

People change over time. Just as a sick person can recover from illness, a person can shake off bad ideas. Similarly, a person may right their wrong actions. That’s why I think we should be careful not to forsake them.

I'd really question the idea that a person even "has" ideas rather than responds to the world ("internal" and "external") in specific patterns after specific experiences. But if you must, a person is a body, so it's the body that has the ideas and as far as anyone else cares, a body's appearance, actions and intentions are the only thing they could really care about.

Ideas are different than actions.

The most competent and predictably conscientious people often don't have very good ideas at all.