Rat vs. Raccoon

Summary

Revisionist History: "Rat vs. Raccoon" – A Detailed Summary

Podcast Information:

• Title: Revisionist History
• Host/Author: Malcolm Gladwell (Pushkin Industries)
• Episode: Rat vs. Raccoon
• Release Date: May 15, 2025
• Description: Revisionist History explores the overlooked and misunderstood aspects of the past, re-examining events, people, ideas, and even songs to question our initial interpretations. Produced by Pushkin Industries in partnership with iHeartMedia.

Introduction to the Raccoon Phenomenon

The episode opens with Ben Nadif Haffrey delving into the unexpected focus on raccoons in Toronto. He interviews Amy Dempsey Raven, an investigative reporter for the Toronto Star, who shifted her investigative lens from police misconduct and child welfare to the escalating raccoon crisis in the city.

Amy Dempsey Raven explains her transition:

"[...] I got into writing about raccoons because they started breaking into my supposedly raccoon-proof green bin in Toronto."
(00:50)

Toronto, dubbed the "raccoon capital of the world," invested 31 million Canadian dollars in raccoon-resistant composting bins in 2016. However, reports soon emerged that raccoons were outsmarting these bins, leading to widespread urban disruptions.

Malcolm Gladwell’s Personal Encounter

Malcolm Gladwell shares his personal experiences with raccoons during his early days in Toronto:

"I couldn't sleep and I went. My friends, a couple of my friends were from Toronto and I was like, what is going on? They're like, oh, it's raccoons."
(02:01)

He highlights the growing problem over the past four decades, illustrating raccoons' pervasive presence across the city—from supermarkets to train stations and even residential attics.

The Raccoon Intelligence Study

Intrigued by the raccoons' abilities, Michael Pettit, a historian of psychology at York University, becomes fascinated by Lawrence Cole's 1907 study titled Concerning the Intelligence of Raccoons. Cole's work suggested that raccoons possessed cognitive abilities comparable to monkeys, making them potential model organisms for psychological studies.

Michael Pettit reflects on Cole's motivations:

"I was just curious."
(06:07)

However, raccoons remained largely understudied compared to other animals like rats or monkeys, leading Pettit to question why they weren't a more prominent subject in psychological research.

The Rise of Behaviorism and the Lab Rat

The episode shifts focus to the dominance of Behaviorism in psychology, which prioritized controllable and predictable animal models, leading to the rat's ascendance in scientific research.

Michael Pettit explains:

"They are animals that you could control."
(14:34)

Bob Bailey, a former leader at Animal Behavior Enterprises, underscores the movement away from raccoons:

"So it was no surprise to us that a lot of psychologists steered clear of coons."
(11:20)

The rat's practicality—being smaller, easier to breed, and more docile—made them ideal for repeated experiments, fostering the belief that findings from rat studies could be generalized to humans. This period marked the "raccoon erasure", where raccoons were systematically sidelined in favor of rats.

Kelly Lambert’s Critique of the Rat Model

Kelly Lambert, a neuroscientist at the University of Richmond, provides a critical perspective on the rat-centric approach in psychological research. Known for her innovative experiments, such as training rats to drive cars, Lambert questions the validity of extrapolating rat behavior to human psychology.

She reflects on the entrenched use of rats:

"I don't think they made a decision about which model organism should we use. The rat was already on board for biomedical research, so it's practical to use the rat."
(16:49)

Lambert emphasizes the limitations of using inbred lab rats, which lack the behavioral diversity and complexity of their wild counterparts, thereby skewing psychological insights.

Raccoons vs. Rats: A Comparative Analysis

The episode juxtaposes raccoon and rat behaviors to highlight the implications of choosing the wrong model organism for understanding human psychology.

Malcolm Gladwell draws an analogy between raccoon traits and human behaviors:

"The raccoon just wants to mess things up. Right? He just. And he's maniacal about it."
(26:46)

He criticizes the anthropomorphic assumptions made when equating rat behavior with human traits, arguing that such comparisons overlook the unique attributes of humans that don't align with the rat model.

Conversely, Suzanne McDonald, a behaviorist and animal cognition expert, challenges the notion of raccoon intelligence:

"Having studied cognition in baby raccoons, they are dumber than sticks. They are so dumb."
(23:48)

McDonald contends that raccoons exhibit "search and destroy" behavior rather than purposeful problem-solving, undermining Cole's earlier assertions of their intelligence.

The Fallout of Rat-Centric Psychology

Ben Nadif Haffrey discusses the broader consequences of the rat model's dominance:

"We aren't rats. I'm not saying we can't learn anything about ourselves from animals. But I am saying that you should never underestimate how many of things we think we know about human beings are actually things we know about inbred rats."
(20:36)

This over-reliance on rats has led to flawed conclusions about human nature, as rat behavior doesn't encapsulate the full spectrum of human cognition and emotion.

Revisiting the Raccoon Model

The episode circles back to the potential of raccoons as a more nuanced model for human behavior, especially in urban settings. However, the skepticism from experts like McDonald tempers this optimism, raising questions about the feasibility and accuracy of using raccoons in psychological studies.

Closing Reflections

In his concluding remarks, Malcolm Gladwell encapsulates the episode's central thesis:

"We built the world for rats, but we are functionally raccoons. And so we are dissatisfied with the rat world, but it is the fact that we have the rat world that has kept us from blowing it all up in our face so far."
(27:55)

He warns of the dangers inherent in a rat-centric scientific paradigm, suggesting that neglecting the complexity of human behavior in favor of simplistic animal models like rats—and ignoring alternative models like raccoons—limits our understanding and capacity to address real-world challenges.

Conclusion

"Rat vs. Raccoon" serves as a compelling critique of the historical and scientific biases that have shaped psychological research. By juxtaposing the overlooked raccoon with the dominant rat, the episode invites listeners to reconsider the foundations upon which our understanding of human behavior is built, advocating for a more diversified and accurate approach to studying cognition and intelligence.

Transcript

[Malcolm Gladwell]

Pushkin.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

You're listening to an iHeart podcast.

[Chase Business]

Behind every successful business is a vision. Bringing it to life takes more than effort. It takes the right financial foundation and support. That's where Chase for Business comes in. With convenient digital tools, helpful resources and personalized guidance, there's they can help your business forge ahead confidently. Learn [e-mail] business chase for business Make More of what's yours the Chase Mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA Member FDIC Copyright 2025 JP Morgan Chase & Co.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

How did you get into writing about raccoons?

[Amy Dempsey Raven]

I got into writing about raccoons because they started breaking into my supposedly raccoon proof green bin in Toronto.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

I'm talking with intrepid investigative reporter for the Toronto Star, Amy Dempsey Raven. Typically, she covers police wrongdoing, child welfare, controversial homicides. But in 2016, when Toronto declared a war on raccoons and unveiled a new raccoon resistant composting bin, she realized it's time to get serious.

[Amy Dempsey Raven]

The mayor came out on this garbage truck and made all of these promises and I wondered, I thought to myself, I'm going to keep an eye on things here.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

This raccoon resistant bin cost the city 31 million Canadian dollars. But Toronto is known as the raccoon capital of the world. Theoretically, it's a point of pride, but it's a little more complicated than that. If a race of Martians took over your city, would you, would you call it the Martian capital of the world? Only if you'd already admitted defeat.

[Malcolm Gladwell]

My first job after graduating was in Toronto and I had a group house.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Local man Malcolm Gladwell.

[Malcolm Gladwell]

I did not grow up in raccoon country, so I had no idea something was making a racket so loud. And all night. Like when I say all night, I mean without stopping. From the moment I went to bed to the morning I woke up, I couldn't sleep and I went. My friends, a couple of my friends were from Toronto and I was like, what is going on? They're like, oh, it's raccoons. Like for them, it was like, oh, yeah, it's just like, that's the deal here.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

That was about 40 years ago. Things have gotten much, much worse.

[Suzanne McDonald]

Doesn't get any more Toronto than this.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

A raccoon inside a supermarket here. Raccoons in the garbage, Raccoons on the train.

[Amy Dempsey Raven]

Oh my God.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Raccoons on the back deck. Time to go down, buddy. Time to go down. You can't stay on this deck anymore. It's your eviction day. Raccoons have taken over the attics in a whole street of houses and refused to leave. They brought traffic to a screeching halt on Toronto's highways and just stood there. They figured out how to open doors to houses and refrigerators and stood on top of countertops, leftovers in their paws stick, staring at freaked out homeowners as if to say, if I wanted you here, I would have rung the bell. Hence the pricey raccoon resistant bins, which surely no raccoon would be able to open.

[Amy Dempsey Raven]

Soon after the rollout, we began hearing reports that raccoons were outsmarting the bins. And the city said, nah, that's. That's not really happening. But then one one night, they broke into mine.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Amy found herself wondering, how are raccoons smart enough to open that bin? This was the question a historian of science had found himself wondering one night when he looked at his back deck in Toronto and saw compost all over the place. He had an earlier version of the compost bin, but here, too, the raccoons had picked the lock. Were they really just that smart? It turned out nobody really knew. Raccoons had hardly been studied, basically not at all compared to other animals like, say, rats or monkeys. This historian wanted to know why the midnight raid on his compost bin would set in motion a sequence of events that, in my own estimation, have come to topple an entire century of psychological theory and restored the raccoon to its proper place, the dead center of how we understand human beings.

[Malcolm Gladwell]

I'm Malcolm Gladwell. You're listening to Revisionist History, my show about things overlooked, misunderstood and in Praise of Toronto. You may be familiar with the phrase lab rat. Perhaps you are aware that many of the things we know about human beings and the way we behave are based upon the things we know about rats and the way they behave. But in this episode, my colleague Ben Nadaff Haffrey asks, what if we picked a wrong animal?

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Many historians of science will write about the greats Einstein, Freud, Oppenheimer, the kind of research project not usually begun while scooping up trash in your bathrobe on your back deck in Toronto. But Michael Pettit's always gotten into things sideways.

[Michael Pettit]

I have almost never written about kind of the dominant people in the field. I personally find myself attracted to the misfits.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Pettit is a historian of psychology at York University in Toronto.

[Michael Pettit]

I woke up one morning and of course, the compost is all over the deck, kind of scooping it up because the raccoons could very easily get into the lock. And as an astronomy of psychology, I asked myself, huh, I wonder if anyone ever used a puzzle box with raccoons. They seem really good at it.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Pettit knew all about scientists putting rats in mazes in puzzly cages. Mainstream stuff, who cares? But in all his studies, he had never heard of a raccoon in a puzzle box. And yet here on his deck was evidence that they were basically able to outsmart any human system.

[Michael Pettit]

This raccoon seemed very adept at doing locks. And so I was just curious.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Michael was curious for good reason, not just because of the loch situation. We've basically never known quite what to make of raccoons.

[Michael Pettit]

You know, they aren't primates, but they're also not rodents. So there's like, there's something about them that they sort of take on this role as kind of this intermediary species. There's this reputation of the raccoon for being this cunning, intelligent trickster.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

For a while, there wasn't even consensus on how exactly they evolved. The famous naturalist Carl Linnaeus called them ursus loder, or washer bear, because they like to rinse their food in water, and he thought they descended from bears. Now, for any true raccoon fans out there, I should note that, yes, they aren't actually washing their food. They basically see with their paws, and their paws are more sensitive in the water. This, by the way, is the instinct behind that amazing Japanese TV show where they gave a raccoon cotton candy which the raccoon dutifully washed until it vanished. But no, they're not washing and they're not bears. When Christopher Columbus first set foot in the New World, he remarked upon its quote, clown like dogs. To which the people of Italy said, chris, what the hell are you talking about? Until centuries later, another naturalist realized, oh, he's talking about raccoons. They're their own thing.

[Michael Pettit]

They in some ways seem to be above the rodents and maybe even are carnivores.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Pettit went looking for a history of raccoon science, specifically about people investigating their intelligence, and found basically nothing. A handful of scientists and one slim volume in particular from 1907, titled concerning the Intelligence of Raccoons. It was written by a man named Lawrence Cole, frontier raccoonist.

[Michael Pettit]

So Lawrence Cole, in a lot of ways, is a nobody. You know, he's not someone. If you go to a history of psychology textbook and pull it off the shelf, he's not someone that's particularly remarkable.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Lawrence Cole had done his graduate work at Harvard and was part of a psychological movement that studied animals to understand humans. In the 19th century, psychology had largely been based on what people said about how they felt, which was not super reliable. So why not instead observe how animals behave and just extrapolate up the chain from there?

[Michael Pettit]

Darwin absolutely says it's not just our kind of our physical form as human beings that is continuous with natural selection, but also our psychological selves.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

But which animal was best for the psychologists to study. Any of them theoretically could work. Scientists were comparing species across tests to see how they'd fare. People had studied chickens, dogs. Cole's advisor liked the idea of studying monkeys, but monkeys are super expensive. It would be helpful, though, if there were a kind of consensus, a lingua franca animal that people could generalize from.

[Michael Pettit]

Through a series of circumstances, he acquires a small colony of raccoons.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Cole still had to find an experiment of his own to get his PhD. These raccoons seemed promising.

[Michael Pettit]

As far as Cool knew, no one had kind of put raccoons through these motions. So that's a doctoral dissertation. I can run these studies with these raccoons.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Right.

[Michael Pettit]

Whatever the data is, I can say I have added to our knowledge of comparative psychology.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

He probably had a hunch that this was going to be interesting.

[Michael Pettit]

I don't know if raccoons are the most charismatic of our fauna, but raccoons, they're kind of fun.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

I think they're the most charismatic of our fauna.

[Michael Pettit]

Well, they're annoying, but they're like. They're lovable scamps.

[Bob Bailey]

Right.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Cole began running tests on the raccoons. He put them in boxes with complicated locks every day for a whole academic year. And he found they were incredible. Any box, it seemed, any puzzle, the raccoon could solve it. And what's more, the animal wasn't just going through the motions. The raccoon seemed curious about what he was doing. And Cole thought there was evidence that raccoons could hold images in their mind. Nobody was making these kinds of claims about other animals. So Cole started publishing his research, writing to leading figures in psychology, saying, hey, these raccoons are really unusually intelligent, maybe as intelligent as monkeys, which seems to me like it should make them a great model organism for people. Except there was a movement that was growing swiftly within Cole's field right around then, which was explicitly uncomfortable with any talk of an animal having a mind. And it was fast becoming the only show in town. It was called Behaviorism. All this history is documented in an amazing article by Michael Pettit. Titled the problem of raccoon intelligence in behaviorist america, which is one of my favorite academic essays of all time, because the raccoon was indeed a problem.

[Bob Bailey]

So it was no surprise to us that a lot of psychologists steered clear of coons.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Bob Bailey, he used to be the top guy at a legendary behaviorist organization called animal behavior enterprises. The founders of that company wrote an infamous paper questioning the fundamentals of behaviorism, the idea that all animals were blank slates. You could write whatever you wanted on. A key example, one raccoon they trained to put coins in a box.

[Bob Bailey]

After, you know, a hundred or so responses, the raccoon would start, instead of just picking up one coin and taking it to the box and putting it in the box, the raccoon would pick up two coins and then rub them together and would start walking towards the box, and then it would stop and rub the coins together, and then it would go to the box and then start to put the coins in and then stop and rub the coins together and then start to put the coins back in the box and the stop and rub the coins together. Eventually it would put the coins in the box. Most of the time.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Eventually. And most of the time, we're bad news for people trying to turn psychology into a reputable hard science. That raccoon box situation came later on. But this exact dynamic put a bit of a target on Lawrence cole, the frontier raccoonist. And if you know anything about the history of psychology, you'll know how the problem of the raccoon was solved. Raccoon erasure. The raccoon does not figure prominently at all. But you know which animal does. The rat. I'm curious about how you account for that historical process of raccoon erasure that begins around them.

[Michael Pettit]

One of the problems with raccoons is they are a much larger and more cumbersome species than your bred labrax, right? In terms of feeding, caging, maintenance, rats proved much more docile and adept. Again, if you want to have decent numbers for your study, they also reproduce quite readily. They have very short breeding cycles, and you can build up the populations.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

But it wasn't just about convenience. It was also difficult to generalize from raccoon experiments. Rats, for example, behaved in predictable, repeatable ways. Raccoons, not so much. How is a scientist supposed to work with an animal who each spring gets wanderlust and attempts to break out of their cage? What do you do when your experimental raccoon colony does escape and moves into your lab's ventilation system? As behaviorism gained steam. Scientists in the big cities attacked the nascent science of raccoons. Wasn't this all a bit silly? Meanwhile, other behaviorists complained that keeping raccoon colonies was really just a huge pain in the neck. And so we got the sentry of the rat and to a lesser degree, the pigeon.

[Michael Pettit]

This behaviorism is a theory of control. They are animals that you could control.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Behaviorists thought they were studying an animal that stood in for all human beings, but actually they wound up studying all lot of lab rats. And that led us to some pretty flawed conclusions about people. We'll be right back. For a little while now, I've been interested in how the lab rat has shaped our understanding of human beings. Rats are all over the history of psychology. Rat studies of depression, rat studies of cooperation, rat studies of rationality. Think about the way we speak. Rat in a maze, the rat race, mall rat, gym rat, smell a rat or rat's nest. It's all rats all the way down. I figured if anyone could tell me about how exactly this all came to be, it would be one of the leading rat behavioral researchers in the country, Dr. Kelly Lambert @ the University of Richmond.

[Kelly Lambert]

For most of psychology, it's just they were the only show in town if you wanted to do research with an animal model. When I was in graduate school at the University of Georgia, this is what we had. That was the only animal model you had.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Lambert loves rats. She's written a book called the Lab Rat Chronicles. A neuroscientist reveals life lessons from the planet's most successful mammals. She's particularly famous for experiments where she taught rats to drive cars, which, if we're being honest, is really why I'd gone to Richmond.

[Kelly Lambert]

So the idea was to train them. You get in the car, you get a fruit leaf. Sit here and get a fruit leaf. But early on, it was amazing that they seemed to learn the concept of driving. So once we shaped them and they learned to press the right lever to go right, they seemed to automatically know to press the left one to go left.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

If you've seen Stuart Little in his red convertible, you're not even half prepared for the image of a lab rat hunched over the dashboard on what appears to be a monster truck, just careening towards a bunch of fruit loops. Lambert loves working with her rats, but lately she's also been questioning how the rat became the be all end all for understanding human beings.

[Kelly Lambert]

I don't think they made a decision about which model organism should we use. The rat was already on board for biomedical research, so it's practical to use the rat.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Basically, it's the lab rat industry. There was a whole factory line system around producing lab rats via mass inbreeding. Premised on the fantasy that the inbred rats were basically interdependent, interchangeable with one.

[Kelly Lambert]

Another, they bred brothers and sisters for 20 generations. Their intention was the animals to be as close to clones as possible. And then whatever your manipulation was, diet, stress, movement or whatever, they felt confident that if they saw a difference between the experimental group that got it and the control group that didn't, that that variable was the influential variable.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

This was all taking off around the time Lawrence Cole's work with raccoons was being cast aside. That kind of inbreeding helped create rats who were much more docile and easier to control than wild rats and certainly than raccoons, which meant it gave the behaviorists easier, more reliable data. And then it just took off. Soon, a prominent psychologist described the field as being infected by a plague of rats. Millions of dollars poured into rat studies. The leader of the Yale Institute of Human Relations announced that anything he observed about rats behaviors among other animals was, quote, identical with those operative in man, even in his highest behavioral achievements. End quote. Let me play you a bit of film that Yale Institute produced. I think it goes a long way to showing exactly how confident these people were and what studying rats could tell us about people.

[Bob Bailey]

Again, a mild electric shock can be administered through the grid on the floor of the apparatus.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

This film has always freaked me out. There's a rat in a cage with an electric current running through the bars. He's got to figure out how to turn it off.

[Bob Bailey]

This time, it can only be turned off by rotating a wheel. The satiated animal starts responding as soon as a drive is supplied.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

The whole time that tone is sounding, the rat is just frantically scrambling around his cage, trying to figure out how to make it stop. Then he starts pawing at a wheel, and it turns off.

[Bob Bailey]

The drive produced by electric shock is stronger than hunger.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

It turns out zapping a rat is a good way to get it to do anything, including violence.

[Bob Bailey]

Responding to another animal by striking him can also be learned. All he needs is a little motivation.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

If you could teach a rat to do anything, why not a person? Suddenly, the scary world of the 20th century began to seem a lot more manageable. Mass movements, great depressions, whatever. Just find the right set of incentives or punishments, and all of human behavior could be predicted and controlled.

[Kelly Lambert]

When he started comparing that behavior to humans at a slot machine or something, people, I think, started Seeing humans as big rats or rats as little. Humans always say that we're not. We've got, what, 6,000 mammalian species and we're going to pick one or two.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Few people question the dominance of the rat at first. Why bother when it was working so well? This kind of thing has always bothered me on a gut level. I look in the mirror every day and I do not see a rat staring back at me. At least, nonsense. Patching the hole in my bathroom wall. We aren't rats. I'm not saying we can't learn anything about ourselves from animals. But I am saying that you should never underestimate how many of things we think we know about human beings are actually things we know about inbred rats with brains the size of grapes kept in cages that sometimes electrocute you.

[Kelly Lambert]

And it's hard for me to think back about why didn't I question that? Or did I ask if there were other models? And it's just come lately that I've had so many of these. Kelly, what the heck were you thinking all these years?

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

We built a science of human nature, and one of the strongest pillars was. Was the lab rat. And who is the lab rat? He is, crucially, not the raccoon. The raccoon lets it all hang out. He's defiant, mischievous, crafty. If asked to participate in a scientific experiment, he will inquire about payment, then call in sick. Not the rat. The rat is hard working by instinct, diligent. He gnaws away. He navigates complex warrants. He gets a perfect score on his SATs. He's rational. Build the maze and he'll fall in line. He is, in short, a good animal for running the same test again and again and again without complaint, while delivering consistent, reliable data suggesting that we humans behave in consistent, reliable ways. For all this, the rat has been rewarded by becoming the only animal synonymous with the scientific laboratory. It's not lab pigeon. It's not lab monkey. It's lab rat. But I was beginning to wonder, what if it should have been lab raccoon? We'll be right back. Some years ago, when Michael Pettit was working on his ingenious article about raccoon erasure, he took a colleague out to lunch, Suzanne McDonald, behaviorist and expert in animal cognition. He told her what he'd been learning about Lawrence Cole and the early raccoon studies. She, a fellow Torontonian beset by the plague of raccoons, was like, oh, my God, how did we miss this?

[Suzanne McDonald]

I originally had thought, and I told Mike this because I thought it was a brilliant insight. Oh, they're the rec. They're the monkeys of North America.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

By monkeys of North America, you mean they fill a certain ecological niche.

[Suzanne McDonald]

Yeah, because we don't have monkeys.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Right.

[Suzanne McDonald]

So I just like, oh, well, you know, maybe they're just like that. They're not primates, but maybe they have evolved to cognitively to be like primates.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Traveling to study monkeys was expensive. If raccoons were like monkeys, then living in Toronto was like living on Safari. So McDonald caught the Lawrence Cole bug, she began to study raccoons, and she's been doing it ever since, because we.

[Suzanne McDonald]

Don'T know very much. Just trying to fill gaps and trying to see what I find out about them. And they are annoying little critters. So it's been challenging, and I wouldn't recommend it to most people.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

MacDonald has become one of the world's leading experts in raccoons, and in particular the urban raccoons of Toronto, with whom I think she feels a strong kinship. For instance, I've seen people saying that there are a hundred thousand raccoons in Toronto. Where did they get that number? McDonnell told me that she was the origin of that statistic, and she just made a number up, which is exactly what a raccoon would do. She gets it. So after a century of waiting, I prepared to receive the good news about the raccoon's true intelligence from the source. I leaned back in my desk chair.

[Suzanne McDonald]

And I can tell you, having studied cognition in baby raccoons, they are dumber than sticks. They are so dumb. Just terrible. In every one of our little markers that we use for animal cognition or intelligence or, you know, developmental milestones, they just fail every single one.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

How intriguing. I thought, maybe the raccoon super intelligence develops at a later age.

[Suzanne McDonald]

No, an adult's not either.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

This is not going well.

[Suzanne McDonald]

So, honestly, that. That is what disappointed me so much, because I. I always thought, you know, the raccoons are the monkeys of North America, but they are not.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

I was at this point trying not to look hugely depressed, but McDonald just kept going.

[Suzanne McDonald]

So what they have done is they've evolved to sort of search and destroy. That seems to be their strategy. Lots of species will search and destroy, and they find a thing and they break it. Right. But there are other situations where you present them with a thing and you can see them looking at it and figuring it out. Yeah, raccoons don't do that. They're just like, what can I do to knock this over? What can I do to break this open. What can I do to get whatever it is I need to get? And they just leave destruction in their wake. So they are not sitting and thinking about things. They are all action. Very little thought.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Here. I should just say that there's a lot we still don't know about raccoons. And indeed, MacDonald still gets a lot out of studying them, too, especially the particularities of urban raccoons. But still, I had wondered about this question for years. Hearing that raccoons were morons actually was kind of a bummer in my book. But you know who was thrilled when I told him about it?

[Malcolm Gladwell]

That's precisely why there's such a better model for human beings.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Again, local man Malcolm Gladwell.

[Malcolm Gladwell]

They are clever, mischievous, vengeful, destructive, and profoundly stupid. That is humanity. We observe the raccoon and we think there is a kind of deep intelligence there that's fueling his behavior, and there isn't. The raccoon just wants to mess things up. Right? He just. And he's maniacal about it. He just wants to destroy. And he has a kind of surface cleverness that serves those destructive impulses. So when I look at the raccoon, I mean, do I need to say it? It's Donald Trump. He's a raccoon. The problem with our. The way we think about Trump is at various points, you know, is Donald Trump a rat? No, he's not a rat.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Nixon's a rat.

[Malcolm Gladwell]

Nixon was a rat.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Nixon's a rat.

[Malcolm Gladwell]

So is he a fox?

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Sometimes people say, oh, crazy like a fox.

[Malcolm Gladwell]

Crazy like a fox. No, because the fox is actually a deeply intelligent animal. Right.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Well, and crucially, wary. The fox is wary. The raccoon is not wary.

[Malcolm Gladwell]

Yes, exactly. The fox would stops to think and pause and blake a strategy and, you know, takes his time. A raccoon would have fallen into the Russian orbit without realizing it. Raccoon, you know, like a raccoon would choose his running mates with carelessness and abandon. I mean, it's just like it's all. It's all raccoon. It feels like to call Trump a rat is to miss is to completely misunderstand who he is. It's just a raccoon. He's going to scrape outside your window all night and like, create a racket and just know everyone else will be sleepless and groggy and he will be happy in the morning.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

There's also, I think, crucially, if we're going back to this kind of. Did we pick the wrong model organism? What do we conclude about human Beings. If we think they are like rats. Rats are very hard working. You give them a task and they will do it ad nauseam. Just, just. They're happy to just keep getting the job done. They are, they. They live in little warrens. You put a rat in a maze and knows exactly what to do, and it's kind of like fine being in a maze.

[Malcolm Gladwell]

Problem solvers.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

They're problem solvers. They're sort of cautious about new things. You talk to any exterminator. It's like very hard to get a rat to eat poison. Like, they, they are very careful about what they eat, what risks they take. Raccoons are extremely disinhibited. They, they aren't wary at all. A raccoon can live to like 20 in a lab in the wild. They tend to live two to three years because they're just sort of like, what's that do? And they just like, like jam their fingers in a socket. It's like. And that's the end of the raccoon. We built the. The world for rats, but we are functionally raccoons. And so we are dissatisfied with the rat world, but it is the fact that we have the rat world that has kept us from blowing it all up in our face so far.

[Malcolm Gladwell]

No. Yes. What you can't, what you never plan for in a world built on rats, on the rat model, is that someone, instead of trying to navigate them maze, just wants to burn it down.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Gladwell]

That's the one thing the rat's never going to do that. And the rat's never going to effectively commit a kind of institutional suicide. The raccoon just wants to destroy things.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

I did a complete 180 on this story. I started thinking that the rat model was a disgrace because I had rats all wrong. I see now it was kind of utopian. Every need could be anticipated, every behavior nudged, every outcome predicted, and every person satisfied. But there is no one animal model for human behavior. A rat's its own thing. A lab rat's its own thing. Raccoons are really their own thing. And we're not one or the other. We're all of the above and something else. But these days, it seems clear we definitely did ourselves a disservice when we forgot about the raccoon. Sadly, I never got to come face to face with a raccoon in reporting this story, but I did get to meet a lab rat.

[Kelly Lambert]

I love designing tests for rats.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Kelly Lambert now studies all kinds of animals in all kinds of places. She's particularly interested in wild animals these days. But Lambert still has a soft spot for the lab rat. When I visited her at the University of Richmond, she took me back into a locked set of rooms. There were signs up that said, quiet. Behavioral testing in progress. And behind one of the doors, a cage with two rats she's been teaching to drive.

[Kelly Lambert]

They're generally, you know, like kittens. A wild rat I have to suit up. It would bite my nose off. So they've been bred to be able to handle them easily. So if I'm looking at aggression or stress, this may not be the best model to use.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

I leaned closer to the rat. Lambert seemed to think he was showing an unusual interest in my microphone.

[Kelly Lambert]

So you're more interested in the novel than the food.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

They're more curious about the mic.

[Kelly Lambert]

I wonder what it is about that.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Actually, the rat was really grabbing at the mic, pulling it closer to its snout.

[Kelly Lambert]

Podcast rat. This is your first rat podcaster.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

It was really weird. He wasn't climbing on the mic. He was just yanking it right up to his face. Not something you would have predicted if you know about rats and how wary they are. A mystery. I felt like maybe that rat was trying to tell me something. Rats communicate via ultrasonic frequencies. So a few days later, when I got home. Home? I processed the audio pitch, shifted it down, and hit play.

[Suzanne McDonald]

Have you ever seen a raccoon drive a car? Long live the lab rat.

[Ben Nadif Haffrey]

Sorry, buddy. I know you're right. But it's the raccoon's time now. Revisionist History is produced by me, Ben Nadif Haffrey, Lucy Sullivan and Nina Byrd Lawrence. Our editor is Karen Shakerjee. Fact checking by Annika Robbins. Original scoring by Luis Guerra. Mixing and mastering on this episode by Echo Mountain. Our executive producer is Jacob Smith. Special thanks to Lizette Barton at the Doctors Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings center for the History of Psychology, and to Sarah Nix and Greta Cohn. I'm Ben Nadif Haffrey. You're listening to an I Heart podcast.