You cannot access your memory without some form of introspection
Introspection has classically meant to examine one's mental state and feelings; it is not a synonym for memory recall
You cannot say "I was influenced by x or y" or "I did feel the need to understand better this or that " and not base your statements on some form of introspection. Otherwise how would you know?
As I said in my reply, "I couldn't point to a single event as the cause that led to what I do professionally." Regardless of the level of recall one can engage in, I neither regard it as the activity known as introspection, nor would I say that this necessarily explains things adequately.
then it follows that the reasons why you became a behaviorist are not rooted in a pursuit of the truth at all, but in a mechanical response to some stimuli: just like a dog trained to learn new tricks will learn them not because the tricks are "true" but because of the treats he gets, you are a behaviorist because of the treats you received (e.g. the tenure, the salary that goes with it)...
Your conclusions are premised on faulty logic. I haven't argued for goal-directed behavior. That does not mean that one cannot have goals. But the goals are derived from the experiences of one's past. You say "treats" are the reason for doing things. We all do things because of past successful behavior. You press on the brake pedal of your car to avoid colliding with something that has darted out in front of you. You don't engage in an inner dialogue regarding whether or not you should press the brake pedal. Pressing the pedal just happens. Because, in the past, pressing the pedal (and related stopping behavior) has prevented you from slamming into things. We are all susceptible to favorable outcomes; and thankfully so.
And yet, it's the simplest of all philosophical arguments: any theory about the human mind must be able to explain its own emergence as a (hopefully true) theory. And reductionist theories systematically fail that test.
mind is an invention used to mediate processes from the brain to the world. It's a metaphor. Some have called behaviorism reductionistic, but many of those people also misidentified operant conditioning with S-R conditioning. Arguing about how to classify the theory is red herring and unimportant. If you want to do anything useful in behavior change, then your best bet is to see how the environment is supporting or failing the behavior in question.
When you can do that, then you will be able to address how to help a person that is addicted to scratch tickets, for example. Clinging to the old models of human behavior and blaming the person for weakness of will is defeatist, ignorant thinking. But if you're satisfied with that, that's your prerogative. I find it much more useful to change the environment and solve problems.