>> might win competitions and make a bunch of money

You mean, they might be more likely to have lots of offspring than someone who was disabled and living on government assistance?

Or 500 years ago, be more likely to slaughter the men and rape the women of a neighboring kingdom, than those who stayed home?

Or for a trait closer to my heart, be adept at handling the intellectual requirements of surviving exile and persecution?

You know it's the success they confer toward reproduction that causes traits to survive or not, right? Without reproduction, of course one generation's genetic noise is just noise. And longevity traits don't survive if they hamper reproduction. Just the opposite: Lots of traits that succeed because they improve the chances of breeding are the worst possible things you would want for longevity. Risk taking behavior and all manner of psychoses have survived and thrived for millenia not because the individuals with them live long, but because they breed prolifically.