The goal of any Stack Exchange site is ask and provide expert answers that deal with the site's domain: answers that are based in reality and supported by cogent arguments and verifiable data.
The goal is not, however, to provide a place to discuss whatever topic tangentially related to the site's domain. That is, Stack Exchange sites are not for the merely curious; for the armchair philosophers and armchair psychologists. The questions that appeal to them don't attract experts willing to offer their knowledge and experience.
So if the purpose of this is to give free license to the questions linked in the answer you linked to, then no.
Indeed, the questions mentioned in the answer you linked support this: not a single question there has answers from expert psychologists or philosophers. And most (if not all) of the highest-voted answers are complete non-answers showing no expertise at all, but instead merely play to the crowd.
Right now, the site's problem is a lack of good answers, not a lack of good questions. It doesn't help the problem by introducing a whole new class of questions that invite bad answers.