Dexter: Really weird guy, awkward, antisocial, med school dropout. Happens to have a really attractive and loving gf, finds himself thrust into important aspects of his job/local city politics. Despite his flaws and past trauma (and everything Dokes [that’s his name right?] despises), he somehow manages to “matter”.

House: Curmudgeon, limp, addict, asshole. Happens to be a genius people are forced to rely on. Somehow he’s always right. Happens to have a thing with the very chesty and attractive coworker/superior Cuddy.

Both of these bryonic anti-heros’ qualities probably serve some purpose to drive the plot, create interesting scenarios that push their genres forward, illuminate oddities of the human condition (😒). But they also seem to share a common theme I see in lots of different successful stories for the general public - protagonists whose destructive traits somehow elevate them rather than, well, destroy them.

CMV: Of course a constant conflict is man vs self in these shows, but the way in which this conflict is presented seems to attract the viewer by (and this the important part) taking flaws that the viewer may likely have and making them strengths. Basically, when the damaged protagonists’ triumphs, the viewer feels validated about themselves.

Edit:
I should qualify that not all antiheros are designed to validate the viewer, but many do. Though I can see my argument falling apart here. Maybe I should qualify it as heros’ (that are not always and frequently not antiheros) negative qualities are frequently used to validate the viewer.