Most people think of Risk and Volatility as being the same thing. They are not.
Volatility is usually defined by the standard deviation of returns of an asset. How much something moves up and down over a period of time.
Risk can be many things - it can be underperforming your objectives, losing a good chunk of your money, or losing all your money.
Just because something is volatile, doesn't necessarily mean it is risky. Likewise, just because something ISN'T volatile, doesn't mean it ISN'T risky.
A bond is generally considered not very volatile, yet in the right environment it could be very risky (inflation or rising interest rates). As well, the depositors of Cyprus banks experienced roughly 0 volatility for years, and then found out that 47.5% of their savings above $132k were gone overnight. It was a very risky investment, even though it's historical volatility was almost nothing.
Likewise, an investment or strategy could be very volatile yes LESS RISKY in the right environment. Going back to the bond example, an inflationary environment may be risky for bonds - but stocks, even though they are more volatile, may be less risky at that time. Or perhaps gold, which has very high volatility, may even be the least risky in that environment. Buffett, although he has experienced high volatility over his investing lifetime, would tell you that he was always buying the least riskiest investment at the least riskiest time (margin of safety).
When designing your portfolio, think first about the RISK. What could go wrong? What is the chance I lose a lot, or all, of my money? What's the worst thing that could happen? Risk is ultimately more important that volatility. Automatically throwing assets into volatility buckets (this is less volatile therefore it's less risky, etc etc) and assuming you have managed risk properly is putting the cart before the horse.