John Watson Founder of Behaviorism

What are John Watson's primary critiques of psychology (i.e., the study of consciousness via introspection)? How does he propose to solve these issues? Do you believe that introspection is important in changing behavior? Why or why not?
First, Watson believed that psychology used “esoteric methods,” and could not establish itself as a natural science (p. 163). Second, Watson noted that unlike the sciences, it is impossible to improve upon the methods used in an experiment in any meaningful way. “The attack is made upon the observer and not the upon the experimental setting,” (Watson, 1913, p. 163). Psychology depends too much on introspection, as Watson calls it. Consciousness is simply too nebulous to study using the scientific method. Watson does not claim consciousness is not a worthwhile subject, but that it is simply not a scientific subject.
To resolve the tension between psychology and the social sciences, and to infuse psychology with a semblance of credibility, Watson advises that psychologists stop studying consciousness altogether. Mental states and consciousness are too ephemeral, and the methods used to study them too speculative. Interestingly, Watson even finds a problem with the study of sensation and perception, which was being studied at the time by Titchner. Watson points out, for example, that even sensations and perceptions have introspective components.
Essentially, Watson believes that psychology is too introspective. Looking inward does not yield results that are externally valid or verifiable. I agree with Watson to a degree. Watson makes a good point, and what he says still rings true as psychology is an imperfect “science.” Psychology remains introspective, even though it purports to be an actual science. I believe that introspection is important, and that it can lead to behavioral change in the individual. Measuring that change is another matter altogether.
Reference
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158-177. doi:10.1037/h0074428
What was Watson's view of the environment? Do you agree with his famous statement, "Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specific world to bring them up in, and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select" (as cited in Hothersall, 2004, p. 479). Why or why not?
For Watson, environment was everything. When Watson made his statement, he also referred to the fact that he believed that through the right training using the methods of behaviorism, any infant could be trained to do anything—from being a doctor to being a thief. Essentially, Watson believed that nurture matters much more than nature. Nature is what gives human beings our instinctive tendencies and abilities to learn but nurture or the environment provides the stimuli. It is certainly tempting to agree with Watson’s statement. After all, Watson’s statement suggests inherent equality of all beings regardless of demographic features, race, class, gender, and social status. Watson believes that a person is a product of the environment, and that with the right opportunities for advancement and learning, any human being can thrive. Many human beings simply lack the opportunity for learning, or their formidable years—from the time they are infants throughout early childhood—do not provide them with the types of opportunities that Watson wants to provide.
I do agree with Watson’s statement on an ideological level. For the most part, any human being can and does respond to the environmental cues including how the person is taught and trained in their formidable years. Where I would disagree is on the grounds of individual differences. Genetics do preclude some individuals toward excelling at some tasks. There is also the matter of physical health. Some infants are born with genetic conditions that might preclude them from reaching the heights that Watson believes are possible. Watson is certainly idealistic, and should be commended for that. However, his complete denial of nature, biology, and predispositions comes across as naive.
References
“Psyography: John Broadus Watson,” (n.d.). https://faculty.frostburg.edu/mbradley/psyography/johnbroaduswatson.html