SE sites do well when questions can be answered in a way that others can ratify. This isn't about programming versus not; it's about being able to explain why and how, about being able to back up or demonstrate what you say in an answer. It's about methods, not topics.
For example, many cooking questions are going to be more science than art. "What should I serve with my lasagna?" is a terrible question (and would be closed on Seasoned Advice) because it's too subjective and opinion-based, not because it's not technical. "What's better, a hashtable or a map?" is technical but would, similarly, be shut down on Programmers or SO. In both cases, if you added enough detail about your constraints, you might produce a question whose answers could be evaluated by means other than "yeah I like that" or "oh, ick".
One example of a site that works very well in this regard is Mi Yodeya. It gets a mix of technical questions (about Jewish law, not about code), practical ("how do I?") questions, and philosophical questions ("why does God...?"). You might think that the latter two would produce bad results, but, in fact, the site has a strong culture of backing up what one says and writing objectively rather than subjectively. This works, even though religion can be a touchy subject.
I've found, in my activity on several sites on the network, that there is a challenge with topics where everybody has experience. "Oh, I have a job -- of course I can answer any question on Workplace with my opinion", or "I use software so I understand UX", or similarly for writing, board games, music, parenting, and probably many others. But this doesn't mean sites like that can't work; many work quite well. It just means the community needs to be attentive and ready to help newcomers formulate better questions and answers. We need to help them go beyond "this is my opinion" to "and here's why it's credible".
"Stack Exchange spirit" is about the approach, not the topic.