A few centuries ago, philosophy was a knowledge. Its concepts and theories were central in most educations. Spinoza proved the existance of God. Charles Fourier defined new societies. Now that sciences and technology rule the knowledge field, philosophy's enthusiasts just claim that philosophy helps learning to think and widens one's spirit. These claims are dubious and unprecise.
> What philosophy does is to teach one to think and reason in ways that one otherwise would not have done. It enlarges one's worldview which makes it easier for one to grasp new ideas and concepts, and to be open to fields of knowledge that one may have otherwise bypassed.
If that were true, I think philosophy would be a mandatory study to anyone interested in advanced scientific theories, because it's hard to grasp concepts about higher dimensions, or the relativity of space-time, etc. Recent history shows that the modern flow is in the other direction: Einstein's theories influenced philosophers, not the other way around.
I strongly doubt that people who read philosophy are significantly more receptive to foreign concepts and cultures. Many factors seem more important. It's like saying a religious belief makes people more open to others, while experiments tend to show the opposite is true.
Even so, most arts can claim the same: "grasp new ideas" and "open to fields of knowledge". In my case, I could say that for literature. Like any art, the form is important: almost nobody studies Gauss' scientific concepts through original texts, while almost nobody reads a modern wording of classical novels or philosophy works. Like literature, philosophy is a peculiar form of artistic culture.