I think about asset allocation very simplistically. I personally have been invested in 95-100% stocks at every stage of my lifecycle thus far and will maintain this asset allocation until I die. Within that equity slice, I have a value and small/mid cap tilt, with balanced domestic/international exposure (including EM). All indexed. Some individual stocks, but just for fun (although, I have dramatically outperformed the market with my individual holdings). The remaining <5% is cash and physical bullion - so that I can keep some assets out of the financial system (for a variety of reasons, some crazy and some not so)...and a little dab of inflation-protected fixed income (TIPS, etc.).
My perspective on this enormous bias toward equities and general disregard for the diversification value of bonds and other fixed income investments stems from two places:
1. Jeremy Siegel's book, Stocks for the Long Run. This book looks at various asset classes through the lens of real returns (after adjusting for the destructive effect of inflation) over the course of 200+years and convincingly concludes that stocks are actually...wait for it...LESS RISKY than bonds over almost any reasonable period of time...after accounting for inflation. This is particularly important for the mustachian crowd, as we are concerned with maintaining sufficient purchasing power with our 'stache for the rest of our lives while FIREd (real dollars)...and not the nominal dollars. The reason for this inflation advantage of stocks is simple. Companies have the ability to keep up with inflation through price increases, etc. over time. This rising pricing tide passes through to shareholders, but not bondholders.
2. My investing "Bible," The Intelligent Investor, by Ben Graham. There are a few key points in this book, but the most critical is the recognition that volatility is not your enemy, but is instead your friend. I am thus dismissive of the academic definitions of risk (beta, standard deviation, etc.). I love volatility, as (just as some others have mentioned in this thread) it creates opportunities to buy when stocks are "on sale" (when the drunkard Mr. Market is willing to sell you his holdings at bargain prices...only to change his mind when he is sober in ensuing days). So, because I don't care about volatility, I have no interest in diluting my long-term real return expectations just to reduce the volatility of the nominal value of my portfolio. I care about long-term real value.
So, for me, given my own circumstances and investing philosophy, my response to the OP's initial question is "yes!"