This paper critically evaluates the conventional insistence on establishing measurement invariance (MI) in cross-cultural psychology. The authors argue that complex and seemingly arbitrary benchmarks for assessing MI can be unrealistic and effectively prohibit meaningful research. The widespread use of various MI criteria creates unnecessary and often unattainable hurdles for cross-cultural researchers. Additionally, the prohibitionist tone of discussions surrounding MI is unhelpful, unscientific, and discouraging. The authors suggest that emerging findings indicating cultural differences may not be as widespread or profound as once assumed imply that significant cross-cultural differences in measurement should not be the default assumption. They advocate a shift towards external validity as a more useful metric of measurement quality. The paper highlights that researchers who gather data in multiple countries should not be disadvantaged compared to those who avoid cross-cultural complications by gathering data only at their home campus. The paper discusses the complicated and arbitrary benchmarks used in assessing MI, noting that these benchmarks often stem from statistical simulations rather than real cross-cultural data. The lack of empirical evidence for established metrics is concerning. The authors also argue that discussions of MI often have a prohibitionist tone, implying that failure to achieve MI is a scientific finding of interest. However, they suggest that such a stance is unscientific and discouraging. The authors argue that meaningful cross-cultural differences should not be the default assumption, and that external validity is a more appropriate metric for evaluating measurement quality. They emphasize that internal validity is not the same as external validity and that the latter is more important for the psychological meaning and predictive utility of any measurement. The authors suggest that future cross-cultural research should focus more on external validity and less on internal validity. They also argue that researchers who gather data in multiple countries should not be discouraged from doing so and should not be disadvantaged compared to those who avoid cross-cultural complications. The paper concludes that the issue of measurement invariance should not inhibit meaningful cross-cultural research.This paper critically evaluates the conventional insistence on establishing measurement invariance (MI) in cross-cultural psychology. The authors argue that complex and seemingly arbitrary benchmarks for assessing MI can be unrealistic and effectively prohibit meaningful research. The widespread use of various MI criteria creates unnecessary and often unattainable hurdles for cross-cultural researchers. Additionally, the prohibitionist tone of discussions surrounding MI is unhelpful, unscientific, and discouraging. The authors suggest that emerging findings indicating cultural differences may not be as widespread or profound as once assumed imply that significant cross-cultural differences in measurement should not be the default assumption. They advocate a shift towards external validity as a more useful metric of measurement quality. The paper highlights that researchers who gather data in multiple countries should not be disadvantaged compared to those who avoid cross-cultural complications by gathering data only at their home campus. The paper discusses the complicated and arbitrary benchmarks used in assessing MI, noting that these benchmarks often stem from statistical simulations rather than real cross-cultural data. The lack of empirical evidence for established metrics is concerning. The authors also argue that discussions of MI often have a prohibitionist tone, implying that failure to achieve MI is a scientific finding of interest. However, they suggest that such a stance is unscientific and discouraging. The authors argue that meaningful cross-cultural differences should not be the default assumption, and that external validity is a more appropriate metric for evaluating measurement quality. They emphasize that internal validity is not the same as external validity and that the latter is more important for the psychological meaning and predictive utility of any measurement. The authors suggest that future cross-cultural research should focus more on external validity and less on internal validity. They also argue that researchers who gather data in multiple countries should not be discouraged from doing so and should not be disadvantaged compared to those who avoid cross-cultural complications. The paper concludes that the issue of measurement invariance should not inhibit meaningful cross-cultural research.