This paper critically evaluates the conventional emphasis on establishing measurement invariance (MI) in cross-cultural psychology. The authors argue that the complex and seemingly arbitrary benchmarks for assessing MI can be unrealistic and effectively prohibit meaningful research. They highlight that 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 advocate for a shift towards external validity as a more useful metric of measurement quality. They suggest that researchers who gather data in multiple countries should not be disadvantaged compared to those who avoid cross-cultural complications. The paper provides examples of measures that lack traditional measurement invariance but still prove insightful, and it emphasizes that meaningful cross-cultural differences should not be the default assumption. The authors conclude by recommending a reversal of the default assumption, a greater emphasis on external validity, and a recognition that researchers should not be discouraged from analyzing their data in any informative way.This paper critically evaluates the conventional emphasis on establishing measurement invariance (MI) in cross-cultural psychology. The authors argue that the complex and seemingly arbitrary benchmarks for assessing MI can be unrealistic and effectively prohibit meaningful research. They highlight that 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 advocate for a shift towards external validity as a more useful metric of measurement quality. They suggest that researchers who gather data in multiple countries should not be disadvantaged compared to those who avoid cross-cultural complications. The paper provides examples of measures that lack traditional measurement invariance but still prove insightful, and it emphasizes that meaningful cross-cultural differences should not be the default assumption. The authors conclude by recommending a reversal of the default assumption, a greater emphasis on external validity, and a recognition that researchers should not be discouraged from analyzing their data in any informative way.