I think words like 'optimum' and 'best suited' over state the case in an otherwise excellent description. One reason is because of the focus on individual traits versus fitness of the overall organism. Optimization of particular survival strategies like hawk-like eye sight and extreme running speed just don't play much of a role in civilized society.
A fair point, and I do have some reluctance to focus on top picks when any individual that succeeds in surviving to breed just once does pass on genes (albeit a lower frequency than those more successful).
The point, I guess, is that in a large population with a predominantly stable ecology there is a "trendency" towards an
optimal combination/s of available traits and that those that are
better fit\suited to survive and breed can do so at the expense of those less fit\suited.
The other issue is that the only thing that is important with regard to selection is survival to breed/sire and raise offspring to adulthood. Surviving to ages older than necessary, memorizing long strings of dates, and being a great backgammon player are not going to be naturally selected for because those things don't play a role in propagating (ignoring the odd mating partner who values those things).
In a social species memorizing things can help the group survive which then ensures that descendants survive.